Georgia passes drug testing for welfare bill...

[.blank cd]

Sad day.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/04/16/georgia-welfare-drug-testing-law_n_1429636.html

[Browning151]

Why is this a sad day? This should be interesting.

[-EnVus-]

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh242/Aaneti-Ninja/tumblr_m1k3muKhvc1qmkf6z.gif

[.blank cd]

Why is this a sad day? This should be interesting.

Just as we start showing signs of progression (sunday sales), we go and pass a regressive bill like this? What is it trying to accomplish? Creating more bureocracy?

[Browning151]

Just as we start showing signs of progression (sunday sales), we go and pass a regressive bill like this? What is it trying to accomplish? Creating more bureocracy?

This has nothing to do with whether or not drugs should be legal, it's about enforcing current laws. Stick to one topic.

[-EnVus-]

Just as we start showing signs of progression (sunday sales), we go and pass a regressive bill like this? What is it trying to accomplish? Creating more bureocracy?
I love the idea I myself know way to many dope heads claiming welfare that im sure would be working or living a better life if drug free.
Maybe this will help clean a lot of them up if not then at least save some income and assistance for those who DESERVE it...

[.blank cd]

This has nothing to do with whether or not drugs should be legal, it's about enforcing current laws. Stick to one topic.We're on the same topic. Not only is this not going to accomplish anything, the constitutionality of testing welfare recipients is questionable, and has already been declared unconstitutional once.

[.blank cd]

I love the idea I myself know way to many dope heads claiming welfare that im sure would be working or living a better life if drug free.
Maybe this will help clean a lot of them up if not then at least save some income and assistance for those who DESERVE it...

Does it comfort you to know that this doesn't affect people who abuse legal drugs, like alcohol and cigarettes?

[Browning151]

We're on the same topic. Not only is this not going to accomplish anything, the constitutionality of testing welfare recipients is questionable, and has already been declared unconstitutional once.

I don't see how unreasonable search and seizure applies here (which is the only constitutional argument I've heard I believe) since welfare is voluntary, you have the option not to be subjected to any search by not applying for assistance. As far as not accomplishing anything, I haven't seen a cost-benefit analysis as to how much it could potentially save taxpayers by eliminating drug users from receiving welfare. I would absolutely agree that if it costs more to implement and maintain than it saves then it is a pretty pointless idea.

[.blank cd]

I don't see how unreasonable search and seizure applies here (which is the only constitutional argument I've heard I believe) since welfare is voluntary, you have the option not to be subjected to any search by not applying for assistance. As far as not accomplishing anything, I haven't seen a cost-benefit analysis as to how much it could potentially save taxpayers by eliminating drug users from receiving welfare. I would absolutely agree that if it costs more to implement and maintain than it saves then it is a pretty pointless idea.

May I direct you to Marchwinski v. Howard?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13040978699174765839&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

...which basically says its not reasonable unless a warrant is issued. Which is pretty much concurrent with existing laws.

[-EnVus-]

Does it comfort you to know that this doesn't affect people who abuse legal drugs, like alcohol and cigarettes?
Yep cause things like Foodstamps won't purchase Alcohol or Cigarettes so they will have to work to achieve those :)

[Browning151]

May I direct you to Marchwinski v. Howard?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13040978699174765839&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

...which basically says its not reasonable unless a warrant is issued. Which is pretty much concurrent with existing laws.

Is it legal for employers to require you to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment?

[.blank cd]

Yep cause things like Foodstamps won't purchase Alcohol or Cigarettes so they will have to work to achieve those :)

Lol. I don't get it. So if I'm on welfare, it's ok if I spend my personal $ (that I worked for) on alcohol or cigs, but NOT if I spend my personal $ on some weed? $50 bucks will by me a carton of cigarettes which won't show up on a drug test at all, $20 bucks will get me a decent amount of weed which will show up a month from now.

[Browning151]

Yep cause things like Foodstamps won't purchase Alcohol or Cigarettes so they will have to work to achieve those :)

Problem with that is.....they're getting assistance and then putting extra money towards those things instead of supporting themselves/their family. The money they spend on alcohol/tobacco should be used to support themselves or their families basic needs. This is where this whole debate gets very slippery.

[.blank cd]

Is it legal for employers to require you to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment?

Stay on the same topic here, we're talking about govt mandated drug test, not civilian ones. But since we're on the subject, a lot of companies have gotten away from doing drug tests because of the costs of finding a positive result. It simply isn't worth it.

[-EnVus-]

Lol. I don't get it. So if I'm on welfare, it's ok if I spend my personal $ (that I worked for) on alcohol or cigs, but NOT if I spend my personal $ on some weed? $50 bucks will by me a carton of cigarettes which won't show up on a drug test at all, $20 bucks will get me a decent amount of weed which will show up a month from now.
Yeah not my fault Cigarettes are legal but not pot maybe that will change some day soon. Also Pot is not addictive so thats a choice to smoke but Cigarettes are HIGHLY addictive and very hard to stop.

[.blank cd]

I've known numerous people to quit cold turkey. It's also a choice to begin smoking in the first place. Same with alcohol.

[Browning151]

Stay on the same topic here, we're talking about govt mandated drug test, not civilian ones. But since we're on the subject, a lot of companies have gotten away from doing drug tests because of the costs of finding a positive result. It simply isn't worth it.

My point is why is it not ok for one, but ok for the other?

[Browning151]

Yeah not my fault Cigarettes are legal but not pot maybe that will change some day soon. Also Pot is not addictive so thats a choice to smoke but Cigarettes are HIGHLY addictive and very hard to stop.

They're still paying for a luxury item while receiving tax payer dollars to provide basic necessities. Do you not see a problem with that?

[.blank cd]

In the case of employment drug screenings it ultimately comes down to an individual's decision whether to have drug screenings or not. In this case it's the govt. Since they've laid out a set of laws for themselves and everyone to adhere to (the constitution) that's where the legality is concerned. It's the same reason cops can't brethalyze you, or take something thats yours without following proper procedure.

If they added that judicial warrants must be issued every time they test you, it wouldn't be an issue.

[-EnVus-]

They're still paying for a luxury item while receiving tax payer dollars to provide basic necessities. Do you not see a problem with that?
Yes but from the taxes ive seen on cigarettes these days its being payed back just as fast unlike pot that can't be taxed lol

[DynamicSound]

I say good...if you can sit around and do drugs all day, you have time to get a job.

[.blank cd]

I say good...if you can sit around and do drugs all day, you have time to get a job.

Studies show that 70% of all illegal drug (including weed) users 18 and up have a full or part time job. Much more if you include cigs and alcohol.

[Vteckidd]

Does it comfort you to know that this doesn't affect people who abuse legal drugs, like alcohol and cigarettes?

im actually going to probably surprise a ton of people and side with blank on this one. Ive done a lot of research on the subject and the truth is, the correlation between welfare users and drug users is extremely small. It will cost more to drug test them and police it, then it will be to solve anything by kicking abusers off the system. They did a study about it in Florida.

Plus, this is a gross abuse of govt powers, telling a person how to spend their money/govt subsidy? If people are using welfare to abuse drugs. so be it, i trust the law will weed them out or they will take care of themselves eventually.

Do you want to spend $4million dollars to police a problem that costs less than $300,000 a year (in abuse to welfare)?

Its really just a talking point that sounds good on paper, but doesnt accomplish the goal

[Vteckidd]

Problem with that is.....they're getting assistance and then putting extra money towards those things instead of supporting themselves/their family. The money they spend on alcohol/tobacco should be used to support themselves or their families basic needs. This is where this whole debate gets very slippery.

while in principle i 100% agree with you, i dont want the govt making those choices. Those people are simply just bound to be at the bottom of the pile, period. Accept it, move on.

I have friends that BITCH about being broke but spend $100 a week on beer and alcohol and cigs. Its retarded, but, thats their choice.

[.blank cd]

I don't think people spending their money on weed is a huge problem (unless there are some statistics out there that I'm not seeing). I would imagine most low-income drug users are recreational users. Chances are if you have children, you're probably not spending as much on drugs are you are on essentials. Stats are showing that the percentage of low income illegal drug users is in line with the percentage of the general population. I understand that there are few exceptions, but I don't think there's enough out there to consider it problematic enough to require this extra legislation. Since most hard drugs like meth flush through your system in days, this will impact the families (read: children) of the rec weed user who only spends a few bucks here and there on a joint, but is legitimately on welfare because of their situation.

If this bill is about doing the right thing, it's a half-step. Maybe even a quarter step. What it does do is infringes on already established constitutional rights. It also leads to a slippery slope on what recreations you can impose on people who are on welfare. Who's to say you can't stop me from spending $20 at the movie theater, which is also something I shouldn't be doing if Im financially strapped. Big govt opposers (conservatives, tea party patriots) should be up in arms over this, yet they're the ones who push it through. It's appalling.

[.blank cd]

im actually going to probably surprise a ton of people and side with blank on this one. Ive done a lot of research on the subject and the truth is, the correlation between welfare users and drug users is extremely small. It will cost more to drug test them and police it, then it will be to solve anything by kicking abusers off the system. They did a study about it in Florida.

Plus, this is a gross abuse of govt powers, telling a person how to spend their money/govt subsidy? If people are using welfare to abuse drugs. so be it, i trust the law will weed them out or they will take care of themselves eventually.

Do you want to spend $4million dollars to police a problem that costs less than $300,000 a year (in abuse to welfare)?

Its really just a talking point that sounds good on paper, but doesnt accomplish the goal

You posted before I finished, but spot on.

[Vteckidd]

Big govt opposers (conservatives, tea party patriots) should be up in arms over this, yet they're the ones who push it through. It's appalling.

thats the other thing that kinda has me scratching my head, this is a HUGE govt intrusion into peoples lives. There IS a way to solve it, nationalize all the grocery stores and utility companies and make welfare only good at those places :P

People are going to make dumb choices, which is probably why they are on welfare in the first place, but when you give the govt a LITTLE permission to be somewhat intrusive, it tends to get out of hand.

I dont want state Govt offices dictating what is recreational and what is not. Im totally ok with them banning the welfare cards on state lottery, alcohol , tobacco products. It should be used for food and shelter only IMO.

[.blank cd]

I will add though that I'm OK with regulating what people spend GOVT WELFARE money on, to a point (which is weird since they can't seem to do it themselves), but I can't say what you can/can't do with your OWN money.

[Browning151]

I actually pretty much agree with both of you. The consequences of just kicking many people off the welfare roles if this is taken to the next level will be much worse than the comparatively few dollars lost on drug users. My main point of contention is where/how the fourth amendment comes into play with this since it is ultimately someones decision to submit to the drug screening.

[.blank cd]

My main point of contention is where/how the fourth amendment comes into play with this since it is ultimately someones decision to submit to the drug screening.
Because its ultimately the governments decision to administer these drug screenings. Unless you've been arrested(which means your rights have been waived for the most part), the govt has to follow procedure when collecting things like this. That procedure is a warrant.

[Vteckidd]

its voluntary to drive right? but even if they arrest you , you have the right to refuse a search/seizure IE drug or breath test. What happens if you test positive for weed? Can they prosecute you for fraud?

I mean like i said i think on paper it sounds perfectly fine, but once you think it through, its basically circumventing all due process.

[Browning151]

Because its ultimately the governments decision to administer these drug screenings. Unless you've been arrested(which means your rights have been waived for the most part), the govt has to follow procedure when collecting things like this. That procedure is a warrant.

The only way the government will administer the drug screening is if you voluntarily sign up for public assistance.


its voluntary to drive right? but even if they arrest you , you have the right to refuse a search/seizure IE drug or breath test. What happens if you test positive for weed? Can they prosecute you for fraud?

I mean like i said i think on paper it sounds perfectly fine, but once you think it through, its basically circumventing all due process.

Walk the drivers license back a step. Is it unreasonable search and seizure to require a drug test to receive a drivers license in the first place? They require hearing a vision tests, for safety reasons. The case could be made that a drug test is needed for safety reasons, to keep drug users from behind the wheel of a car.

I'm playing devils advocate a little bit here because I see where the case can be made on either side of the argument, it will be interesting to see where this lands with the courts.




ETA: 32 replies in 3 hours, I haven't seen this section that busy in a long time.

[.blank cd]

The only way the government will administer the drug screening is if you voluntarily sign up for public assistance.



Walk the drivers license back a step. Is it unreasonable search and seizure to require a drug test to receive a drivers license in the first place? They require hearing a vision tests, for safety reasons. The case could be made that a drug test is needed for safety reasons, to keep drug users from behind the wheel of a car.Its the SEIZURE part. You're not giving anything up for a hearing and vision test. For a drug screening they have to take a urine/blood/hair sample from you. It's the collection of physical evidence.

[Vteckidd]

The problem with the drivers license example is there is no way to tell if someone is high right NOW or last week other than visually looking but bloodshot eyes doesn't= guilty. That's a major hurdle for legalizing marijuana, there's no accurate test out.

You can test hearing and vision on site for safety, alcohol they test in the field for the DUI. How do you test for marijuana?

Or cocaine? Or heroin? Or Meth?

[Vteckidd]

What if they changed the wording to "you must submit to a drug screen to apply for benefits ".

That way the state isn't picking and choosing. Or if you're convicted of a drug related offense your lose benefits.

What about that? Shift responsibility to the individual, not the state?

[Browning151]

What if they changed the wording to "you must submit to a drug screen to apply for benefits ".
That way the state isn't picking and choosing.

I'm not sure that changes much.


Or if you're convicted of a drug related offense your lose benefits.

What about that? Shift responsibility to the individual, not the state?

I can completely get behind this. I would also think maybe a "tiered" system could be implemented; 1st offense 6 month suspension. 2nd offense 1 year suspension. 3rd offense permanent suspension of benefits, or something similar.

[Browning151]

Its the SEIZURE part. You're not giving anything up for a hearing and vision test. For a drug screening they have to take a urine/blood/hair sample from you. It's the collection of physical evidence.

Is it still unreasonable if you voluntarily submit to the screening?

I see where you're coming from, that's why I say this will be interesting to see where it lands with the courts.

[BanginJimmy]

In the case of employment drug screenings it ultimately comes down to an individual's decision whether to have drug screenings or not. In this case it's the govt. Since they've laid out a set of laws for themselves and everyone to adhere to (the constitution) that's where the legality is concerned. It's the same reason cops can't brethalyze you, or take something thats yours without following proper procedure.

How is it NOT an individuals decision whether or not to ask me and you to pay for their lifestyle?


If they added that judicial warrants must be issued every time they test you, it wouldn't be an issue.

Or they can just add a stipulation that a drug test is required as part of the application process.


What it does do is infringes on already established constitutional rights.

Please cite where the Constitution says you have a right to welfare money.


there's no accurate test out.

Wrong. Many of the simple litmus strips are over 95% accurate. That is more accurate than a field sobriety test which can be the justification for a breathalizer.


How do you test for marijuana?

Or cocaine? Or heroin? Or Meth?

Wrong again. There are litmus strips, there are individual cups and there are mass batch tests. All with well over 95% accuracy.

The mass batch tests are the cheapest. Those test require a minimum PPM reading (depending on the number of samples) to come back as a hit. If the lab tests a batch of 100 samples and gets a hit, they go back and test each individual sample to find the dirty one(s). This style of testing has a built in redundancy that makes a false positive nearly impossible.


Or if you're convicted of a drug related offense your lose benefits.

I agree completely. I would go so far to say you are not allowed welfare if convicted of any felony within the previous 10 years.

[-EnVus-]

As for the Government paying for screening I Just read that they would charge a $25 fee for the drug screening for which would be fully reimbursed if Negative.
I personally hope they start with places like here in Barrow county cause about 75% are drug abusers and not just Pot.

[.blank cd]

How is it NOT an individuals decision whether or not to ask me and you to pay for their lifestyle?Dont worry, you will never pay for anyone's lifestyle. Drug dealers, as far as I know, don't accept EBT/SNAP cards.



Or they can just add a stipulation that a drug test is required as part of the application process.Not a problem, just issue a warrant for the drug test and we'll be good




Please cite where the Constitution says you have a right to welfare money.This isn't what we're arguing for. Public assistance isn't going anywhere anytime soon.




Wrong. Many of the simple litmus strips are over 95% accurate. That is more accurate than a field sobriety test which can be the justification for a breathalizer. Not only is it not accurate enough, the human body flushes hard drugs out of the system rather quickly. Meth in a matter of days. The only drug that stays in the system for any length of time is weed.



I agree completely. I would go so far to say you are not allowed welfare if convicted of any felony within the previous 10 years.Wow. That's quite a long time. Especially for the dad who did a stint in prison for simple marijuana possession, who now has kids to feed. But who cares about the children, right? As long as we're not paying for these evil felons lifestyle! LOL.

[.blank cd]

As for the Government paying for screening I Just read that they would charge a $25 fee for the drug screening for which would be fully reimbursed if Negative.So the govt is paying $25 a test. How many negative results do we need to break even on the money we save from denying people welfare? Anyone wanna do the math?

[-EnVus-]

So the govt is paying $25 a test. How many negative results do we need to break even on the money we save from denying people welfare? Anyone wanna do the math?
The citizen receiving benefits would pay the $25 for screening not the government. So if you say 45% of those paying to only fail lose $25 each the government is actually making more money lol
A good friend of mine saw the same News post and said "Damn I'm gonna starve" :lmfao:

[Browning151]

Dont worry, you will never pay for anyone's lifestyle. Drug dealers, as far as I know, don't accept EBT/SNAP cards.

They do accept Tide though.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/tide-theft-tied-to-drug-trade/

[-EnVus-]

I remember when i was little and growing up trying to sell Food stamps so i wouldn't be embarrassed at the store.

[.blank cd]

The citizen receiving benefits would pay the $25 for screening not the government. So if you say 45% of those paying to only fail lose $25 each the government is actually making more money lol
A good friend of mine saw the same News post and said "Damn I'm gonna starve" :lmfao:

You said the govt is reimbursing the $25 bucks if you pass. Based on research studies, 10% of low income people use illicit drugs, which is in line with the national rate. So we'll start at a 10% failure rate, some will be scared to apply, so let's cut that down to 5%. Some will be smart enough to hold off until they get approved, so let's give it a REALLY LIBERAL 1% failure rate. Let's say 100,000 people apply and 100 people fail. At a government subsidized $25, you've spent $2.5 million testing people (illegally, but we'll get to that). If you assume assistance gives on avg $15,000, you've payed out $1,502,500 less assistance for a whopping total of $997,500 extra spent per 100k applications on implementing this program, not including the extra administration costs.

[-EnVus-]

I guess it just comes down to the majority of people not wanting to see a crack or pot head eat. I am all for stopping those that can afford illegal drugs from getting assistance. I just hate the idea that the children that belong to those tested positive will starve.

[C230K]

Im glad they passed the law myself, I wonder how Bankhead would be with sober crackheads. I hate seeing people in my area taking advantage of welfare

[bu villain]

Trying to stop people on welfare from making bad choices ... this will definitely work.

[BanginJimmy]

Trying to stop people on welfare from making bad choices ... this will definitely work.

IMO its not about stopping them from making bad choices, its about using tax money to fund their bad choices.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[bu villain]

IMO its not about stopping them from making bad choices, its about using tax money to fund their bad choices.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

But drug testing will only help to decrease ONE bad choice and will probably only have a marginal effect at best. A junkie isn't gonna get clean because you promise him $100 a month in food stamps. Even if you theoretically stopped them from doing drugs by doing drug testing, you can't stop them from being drunks, gambling, or buying a million other luxury items with their cash. We should make sure every dollar is effective as possible. Drug testing seems like a lot of cost/effort for a very small reward. I can sympathize with the goal but I don't see this having any sort of real positive impact.

[BanginJimmy]

But drug testing will only help to decrease ONE bad choice and will probably only have a marginal effect at best. A junkie isn't gonna get clean because you promise him $100 a month in food stamps. Even if you theoretically stopped them from doing drugs by doing drug testing, you can't stop them from being drunks, gambling, or buying a million other luxury items with their cash. We should make sure every dollar is effective as possible. Drug testing seems like a lot of cost/effort for a very small reward. I can sympathize with the goal but I don't see this having any sort of real positive impact.

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[.blank cd]

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

You like how the crime rate is where you live? If you get rid of public assistance it won't stay like that. Lol

[C230K]

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Uh NO! There will be a riot over here and in Atlanta

[BanginJimmy]

Uh NO! There will be a riot over here and in Atlanta

I'm not surprised lawlessness coexists with dependence. They are owed that money arent they?

[RL...]

A year ago I wouldve been gung ho for this. But now after I've read stats about this being executed in other states in the US, it seems like a bad idea. It will cost more to implement, employ and maintain this than any savings that would be seen.

more here

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/just-we-suspected-florida-saved-nothing-drug-testing-welfare

[bu villain]

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

That is an option. However, you can also accept that giving someone a hand doesn't entitle you to dictate all their life choices. There is a reason why soup kitchens and churchs don't consider drug testing before offering charity to others. It's because the goal is to feed those in need, not to judge their life choices. I'm proud that in this country, we collectively have agreed that no one should have to starve in the streets regardless of mistakes they have made.

[green91]

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

AMEN! It would not bother me a BIT to see the welfare system done away with. That and a flat-rate tax across the board would solve a LOT of social ills.

I know not everyone is religious or warm hearted, but id rather see people on hard times going back to what the world used to do... lean on the church for assistance or other PRIVATE/NON-PROFIT entities that assist people. That way people who are truly on hard times can still get by, rather than having a system that people LIVE on instead of LEAN on.

[BanginJimmy]

That is an option. However, you can also accept that giving someone a hand doesn't entitle you to dictate all their life choices.


Giving someone a hand is short term. People use welfare as a career these days. Why should be giving someone "a hand" when they have no intention of helping them-self?

[BanginJimmy]

A year ago I wouldve been gung ho for this. But now after I've read stats about this being executed in other states in the US, it seems like a bad idea. It will cost more to implement, employ and maintain this than any savings that would be seen.

more here

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/just-we-suspected-florida-saved-nothing-drug-testing-welfare

Using the aclu as as a source is about as unbiased as using the DNC website as a research tool on RNC proposals.

[.blank cd]

Using the aclu as as a source is about as unbiased as using the DNC website as a research tool on RNC proposals.

It's not a biased opinion piece. It's a fact based blog entry telling you what you should already know. This measure to cut welfare costs in FL has cost them more than what they saved.

I don't fault Faux news for reporting biased information, I fault them for reporting false information as true. There's no bias here.

[BanginJimmy]

It's not a biased opinion piece. It's a fact based blog entry telling you what you should already know. This measure to cut welfare costs in FL has cost them more than what they saved.

I don't fault Faux news for reporting biased information, I fault them for reporting false information as true. There's no bias here.

Sure.


Funny how you find a way to attack a right leaning news source as a response to me ignoring a FAR left organization.

I will still ignore th aclu, even after your attempt to give them unfounded credibility.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[.blank cd]

I will still ignore th aclu, even after your attempt to give them unfounded credibility.
I know you will continue to ignore facts. It's a common problem with conservatives. Since facts rarely correspond with their beliefs, they choose to ignore it and label it "liberal". Just because you believe the program will/should work, doesn't mean it's working.

Here's a similar article posted on New York Times slamming the Florida program. The same info is on a host of other sites. The data is also out there

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=1&ref=us

[Browning151]

I know you will continue to ignore facts. It's a common problem with conservatives. Since facts rarely correspond with their beliefs, they choose to ignore it and label it "liberal". Just because you believe the program will/should work, doesn't mean it's working.



I know you will continue to ignore facts. It's a common problem with liberals. Since facts rarely correspond with their beliefs, they choose to ignore it and label it "right-winged". Just because you believe the program will/should work, doesn't mean it's working.


That statement works both ways.

[112480]

AMEN! It would not bother me a BIT to see the welfare system done away with. That and a flat-rate tax across the board would solve a LOT of social ills.

I know not everyone is religious or warm hearted, but id rather see people on hard times going back to what the world used to do... lean on the church for assistance or other PRIVATE/NON-PROFIT entities that assist people. That way people who are truly on hard times can still get by, rather than having a system that people LIVE on instead of LEAN on.

Man u really dont understand crime rate do you. LOL! When that "lazy" person start lurking though YOUR Area and close to YOUR home because of this new law, then i suspect u'll change your opinon.

You'll call the police? They cant help everyone and their wont be enough police for that situation.

You have a gun or guns? LOL! People in those situations do to and most likely will come full force more than you. Not saying be scared.....

Just something to think about....

[.blank cd]

That statement works both ways.If you change the word "facts" with "beliefs", just to maintain continuity, you might be right

[Browning151]

If you change the word "facts" with "beliefs", just to maintain continuity, you might be right

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Part of the reason I enjoy politics and political debate, differences of opinion.

[BanginJimmy]

Man u really dont understand crime rate do you. LOL! When that "lazy" person start lurking though YOUR Area and close to YOUR home because of this new law, then i suspect u'll change your opinon.

You'll call the police? They cant help everyone and their wont be enough police for that situation.

You have a gun or guns? LOL! People in those situations do to and most likely will come full force more than you. Not saying be scared.....

Just something to think about....


So wait, let me get this right. All these people on welfare have a right to this money and if it is cut off they are going to start killing random people? This definitely sounds like a class of people that we should keep supporting as they multiply.

I need to change my previous statement now.

We need to cut off all welfare programs, then round up all of the people on welfare programs and execute them before they can start randomly killing innocent people. In the name of the public good, we must rid our country of these criminals we have been paying off for generations.

[burnout1990]

And I guess if you believe that drug testing for welfare is wrong you may think this is acceptable then? As for me I believe that drug testing is absolutely great idea, Why should you be getting tax payer money as assistance and be able to get high, you obviously don't need the assistance that bad if you can afford a RECREATIONAL drug...
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/14772535/state-official-legal-to-use-welfare-benefits-in-vacation-hotspots-4-04-2011

[.blank cd]

I need to change my previous statement now.

We need to cut off all welfare programs, then round up all of the people on welfare programs and execute them before they can start randomly killing innocent people. In the name of the public good, we must rid our country of these criminals we have been paying off for generations.So genocide is the solution? Hmm. Worked for Nazi Germany.

....oh wait....

[C230K]

And I guess if you believe that drug testing for welfare is wrong you may think this is acceptable then? As for me I believe that drug testing is absolutely great idea, Why should you be getting tax payer money as assistance and be able to get high, you obviously don't need the assistance that bad if you can afford a RECREATIONAL drug...
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/14772535/state-official-legal-to-use-welfare-benefits-in-vacation-hotspots-4-04-2011

what he said

[masanomi3]

Im glad they passed this law. I just cant stand some lazy ass people who just sit on there ass all day And don't want to look for a job( Granted its hard to find one). Pop out 10 kids just to get more money. These kind of people are making it hard for others that actually need welfare to get it.

[green91]

Man u really dont understand crime rate do you. LOL! When that "lazy" person start lurking though YOUR Area and close to YOUR home because of this new law, then i suspect u'll change your opinon.

You'll call the police? They cant help everyone and their wont be enough police for that situation.

You have a gun or guns? LOL! People in those situations do to and most likely will come full force more than you. Not saying be scared.....

Just something to think about....

The logic of this argument is beyond comprehension. I'm sure that with a small % of the money saved by the government not supporting half of this country we could step up law enforcement. Plus im not terribly concerned about it in my area.

[bu villain]

Giving someone a hand is short term. People use welfare as a career these days. Why should be giving someone "a hand" when they have no intention of helping them-self?

Now you are discussing a different problem. Long term welfare dependency. Drug testing definitely won't solve that one because most people on welfare are not drug addicts.

[bu villain]

Im glad they passed this law. I just cant stand some lazy ass people who just sit on there ass all day And don't want to look for a job( Granted its hard to find one). Pop out 10 kids just to get more money. These kind of people are making it hard for others that actually need welfare to get it.

What does this have to do with drug testing?

[C230K]

Now you are discussing a different problem. Long term welfare dependency. Drug testing definitely won't solve that one because most people on welfare are not drug addicts.

How do you know that?

[.blank cd]

How do you know that?Because studies show that the percent of low income people that use drugs is in line with the general population. If you use drugs, you use drugs, rich or poor.

[Browning151]

Because studies show that the percent of low income people that use drugs is in line with the general population. If you use drugs, you use drugs, rich or poor.

I hate to say it, but I actually have to agree here.


The correlation between welfare recipients and drug use is largely anecdotal IMO. People do generally associate drug use with the stereotypical "lazy bum" and I think there's also a perception that welfare recipients are lazy bums. While I don't think the latter is wholly untrue, I don't think the drug use/welfare recipient angle holds much water. The difference in drug use from welfare recipients to the general population is probably marginal. I do still dislike the idea that someone can get public assistance while using drugs, but if it cost more than it saves to implement, what's really the point? Then you're just playing moral police to an extent. It's a side effect of the system we've created, I don't think anyone would disagree that entitlements need a major overhaul, how we get there is where we differ.

[guinness]

A regressive bill? WTF? Seriously? If you wanna go out and do your shit, then fine, at least show enough self-control to get and stay clean long enough to pass the drug screen. If you can't even so much as do that, then this is just a another consequence of your lazy inadequate ability to do something productive that would only benefit themselves more than any and everyone else. In life there are checks and balances. If you want to do dope and are on welfare, then you need to learn to balance your drug use and it's timing with the funds and perks that are being given to you with only one "strict" condition. If not, then you will not get the perk and be even in worse shape than before because the "extra money" you did have for your drug use will now have to go to either eating/feeding yourself and/or children, or your drug habit, and yet once again, the scales of balance are put in front of you again. It's not that hard to control oneself long enough to get what it is they are wanting or in this case needing. Really, a sad day? Get fucking real. That's about as retarded as saying that all imports are the same.

[.blank cd]

LOL, so what youre saying is you pretty much totally agree with me?

[guinness]

That I agree with which comment sine there were several made by you throughout this thread, lol?

[BanginJimmy]

So genocide is the solution? Hmm. Worked for Nazi Germany.

....oh wait....


According to the guy I quoted, these parasites are a danger to anyone around them simply because they are on welfare. Why would you not want to get them off the streets.


BTW, the Nazis were small time. Take a look at the numbers from Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Each of them ordered the killing of EASILY 3x the number that Hitler ordered.

[BanginJimmy]

Now you are discussing a different problem. Long term welfare dependency. Drug testing definitely won't solve that one because most people on welfare are not drug addicts.


The reason this is part of the same problem is simple, most employers, and every employer I have ever applied with, require a drug test. If you cannot pass a drug test for welfare, you cannot pass one for an employer. If you choose to do something that will prevent you from getting a job and supporting yourself, why should I support you?


Here is a pretty good article about drug testing from 2007. It even brings up some of the shortcomings of drug testing.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20070206/NEWS/702060387?p=1&tc=pg


My point stays the same though. If you cannot pass a drug test for welfare you cannot pass one for an employer. If you choose to partake in something that will prevent you from getting a job, you arent looking for a job. If you are on welfare and not looking for a job, it means you arent looking for help, you are looking for a handout. I have no patience for people only looking for a handout. I have no problems with them starving on the streets if they have no intention of trying to help themselves.

[bu villain]

The reason this is part of the same problem is simple, most employers, and every employer I have ever applied with, require a drug test. If you cannot pass a drug test for welfare, you cannot pass one for an employer. If you choose to do something that will prevent you from getting a job and supporting yourself, why should I support you?

I don't disagree in theory just in practicality. You want to test 100% of welfare recepients when drug use is only a significant cause of being on welfare for a very small percentage of recipients. Many welfare recepients already have jobs. The numbers just don't make sense fiscally and I'm not interested in the government becoming more of morality police.


I have no problems with them starving on the streets if they have no intention of trying to help themselves.

What about the children of these people? If someone stupidly does drugs even one time and gets caught, should their children not receive that assistance? Or do you think everyone who fails a drug test must be a junkie who would never feed their kids whether they received welfare or not?

[BanginJimmy]

I don't disagree in theory just in practicality. You want to test 100% of welfare recepients when drug use is only a significant cause of being on welfare for a very small percentage of recipients. Many welfare recepients already have jobs. The numbers just don't make sense fiscally and I'm not interested in the government becoming more of morality police.



What about the children of these people? If someone stupidly does drugs even one time and gets caught, should their children not receive that assistance? Or do you think everyone who fails a drug test must be a junkie who would never feed their kids whether they received welfare or not?

1. I made no mention of causation. What caused them to be on welfare are their own bad decisions for a very large majority. I dont care what those specific causes are, the final result is the same.

2. The kids are a weapon the parasites use against anyone looking to make any meaningful reforms to handout programs. I have stated a few times what I would do with welfare. Pop once you get a warning and get tested every month for 6 months but still get your check. Second time you dont get your check and are required to attend outpatient treatment. Third time you lose all handouts for life and kids are taken away.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[bu villain]

1. I made no mention of causation. What caused them to be on welfare are their own bad decisions for a very large majority. I dont care what those specific causes are, the final result is the same.

So then why do you only want to deny benefits to those that do drugs and not anyone who continues making other bad decisions?


2. The kids are a weapon the parasites use against anyone looking to make any meaningful reforms to handout programs. I have stated a few times what I would do with welfare. Pop once you get a warning and get tested every month for 6 months but still get your check. Second time you dont get your check and are required to attend outpatient treatment. Third time you lose all handouts for life and kids are taken away.

You make it sound as if everyone who benefits from any welfare program at all is a parasite. Do you really believe that? Although I agree kids can be used unfairly as a weapon to fight reform, the fact is the way in which reforms affect children is a very important aspect to be taken into account. If you don't consider the effects on children, you are missing a very big piece to the puzzle.

[BanginJimmy]

So then why do you only want to deny benefits to those that do drugs and not anyone who continues making other bad decisions?

Because as of right now, drugs are illegal, other bad choices are not. I have said previously that anyone convicted of a felony should be barred from any welfare program for a minimum of 10 years.



You make it sound as if everyone who benefits from any welfare program at all is a parasite.

They are. They take from their host, but give nothing in return. The only difference between a long term parasite and a short term parasite is personal responsibility. A short term parasite looks at welfare programs as they were meant to be, a helping hand to recover from a personal tragedy. A long term parasite is someone that sits on their lazy ass and collects a handout for their entire life.

The short term parasites will rarely, if ever, get caught up in this as they know to stay clean while they search for work. The long term parasites simply dont care about working, so why should they bother?



Although I agree kids can be used unfairly as a weapon to fight reform, the fact is the way in which reforms affect children is a very important aspect to be taken into account. If you don't consider the effects on children, you are missing a very big piece to the puzzle.

And I already addressed my way of handling it.

[.blank cd]

Because as of right now, drugs are illegal, other bad choices are not.So it's ok to be on welfare if you're an alcoholic, since that drug is legal?

[BanginJimmy]

So it's ok to be on welfare if you're an alcoholic, since that drug is legal?

Did I say that?

Checked back, I didnt.

You are saying its OK for someone to get welfare even though they have a $300/wk heroin habit though.

[bu villain]

Because as of right now, drugs are illegal, other bad choices are not. I have said previously that anyone convicted of a felony should be barred from any welfare program for a minimum of 10 years.

But drug possession is usually only a misdemeanor so why not ban anyone with ANY misdemeanor from getting welfare? Why are should drug misdemeanors be treated differently?


They are. They take from their host, but give nothing in return.

Except that pretty much everybody on welfare does contribute something. They pay sales taxes, gas taxes, and often even income tax either before they get on welfare or afterwards. Many of them have jobs so they are contributing in that way, including fica, SS, medicare taxes. Additionally the unemployed may contribute in a great number of other ways. For example, I know there are elderly on welfare who take care of their grandkids so their parents can work. To say all welfare recepients are parasites to society is simply not true.


And I already addressed my way of handling it.

Yes you did. I was just saying that what happens to children is a valid concern that can't be ignored.

[bu villain]

Jimmy, I am curious if you think alcoholics should receive welfare benefits or not.

[.blank cd]

Jimmy, I am curious if you think alcoholics should receive welfare benefits or not.

This should be good

[BanginJimmy]

Jimmy, I am curious if you think alcoholics should receive welfare benefits or not.


This should be good


I would love to say no, but I dont know of any test for alcoholism.

[dragoncelica]

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh242/Aaneti-Ninja/tumblr_m1k3muKhvc1qmkf6z.gif

X1000

[blaknoize]

Because studies show that the percent of low income people that use drugs is in line with the general population. If you use drugs, you use drugs, rich or poor.

I know this as correct, being raised in a part of the country who's pill per capita is very high. From the top to the bottom and those inbetween, they all use drugs because.. they use drugs.

[blaknoize]

Jimmy, I am curious if you think alcoholics should receive welfare benefits or not.


This should be good


I would love to say no, but I dont know of any test for alcoholism.

That's easy, post officers at packages, stores and bars. Catch them walking to their cars and into those stores. Get them "over the limit" 2-3 times and deem them alcoholics, then ban them. They'll pass a law allowing that soon enough.

[bu villain]

I would love to say no, but I dont know of any test for alcoholism.What about a breathalizer? Sure it just tests for use rather than serious addiction but that's the same with a drug test. Is the issue really about whether or not a test is possible? Because we could probably start analyzing bank/credit card statements to see if welfare recipients were buying unnecessary items. Or we could audit them similar to the IRS to make sure they didn't own any luxury items. There are a million things we could do to make ourselves feel better about not giving money to "people who don't deserve it" but we need to be realistic about how much its going to cost and whether or not it is worth it.

[BanginJimmy]

That's easy, post officers at packages, stores and bars. Catch them walking to their cars and into those stores. Get them "over the limit" 2-3 times and deem them alcoholics, then ban them. They'll pass a law allowing that soon enough.





What about a breathalizer? Sure it just tests for use rather than serious addiction but that's the same with a drug test. Is the issue really about whether or not a test is possible? Because we could probably start analyzing bank/credit card statements to see if welfare recipients were buying unnecessary items. Or we could audit them similar to the IRS to make sure they didn't own any luxury items. There are a million things we could do to make ourselves feel better about not giving money to "people who don't deserve it" but we need to be realistic about how much its going to cost and whether or not it is worth it.


2 absolutely moronic posts in a row.

I understand that you dont have a viable response
but you could do yourself a favor and just not post.

You hate the fact that you cant find a hole in my logic but you refuse to let common sense prevail. Simple fact says that if you use drugs, even recreationally, most employers will not hire you. If you choose to do something that disqualifys you from the employee poll you arent really looking for a job. If you arent looking for a job, why am I subsidizing you?




Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[VTECking]

In the case of employment drug screenings it ultimately comes down to an individual's decision whether to have drug screenings or not. In this case it's the govt. Since they've laid out a set of laws for themselves and everyone to adhere to (the constitution) that's where the legality is concerned. It's the same reason cops can't brethalyze you, or take something thats yours without following proper procedure.

If they added that judicial warrants must be issued every time they test you, it wouldn't be an issue.

Well lets put it this way, if you are unemployed and you are not concerned about passing a drug test to get a job, then why should this bill concern you. Truth be told the majority of jobs in this world require you to take a drug test in order to get hired so why should the people that are trying to get welfare not be tested either. If anything this bill may slightly decrease unemployment in the state of Georgia because the future people that are on welfare that passed this drug test may now be hired to work whatever job they applied for simply because if they can pass the welfare drug test, they may just pass the drug test upon receiving a job.

[bu villain]

2 absolutely moronic posts in a row.

I understand that you dont have a viable response
but you could do yourself a favor and just not post.

You hate the fact that you cant find a hole in my logic but you refuse to let common sense prevail. Simple fact says that if you use drugs, even recreationally, most employers will not hire you. If you choose to do something that disqualifys you from the employee poll you arent really looking for a job. If you arent looking for a job, why am I subsidizing you?

If you insist on insulting people for not understanding your point of view, I am done debating with you. I haven't disrespected you for seeing things differently then me and have even stated I agree with some of your premises but apparently my opinion is not "viable" and "moronic". Your opinion however is apparently unassailable because it is based on "common sense" rather than looking at any sort of cost/benefit analysis or considering any unintended consquences. If you can't admit the other side has any valid concerns then this discussion will be fruitless. Enjoy your smugness.

[bu villain]

Truth be told the majority of jobs in this world require you to take a drug test in order to get hired so why should the people that are trying to get welfare not be tested either.

Because a large portion of those on welfare already have a job so drugs are not preventing them from getting a job. The actual number of people who can't get a job because they fail a drug test is a very small percentage (feel free to present evidence to the contrary).


If anything this bill may slightly decrease unemployment in the state of Georgia because the future people that are on welfare that passed this drug test may now be hired to work whatever job they applied for simply because if they can pass the welfare drug test, they may just pass the drug test upon receiving a job.

While the idea makes perfect sense, I think you are overestimating how many people this will really help get a job. In my opinion, the large cost does not justify such a small effect.

[BanginJimmy]

If you insist on insulting people for not understanding your point of view, I am done debating with you.

I didnt insult you, I insulted your post. the rest of my comments stand. You absolutely hate the fact that there isnt a hole in my logic.




I haven't disrespected you for seeing things differently then me and have even stated I agree with some of your premises but apparently my opinion is not "viable" and "moronic". Your opinion however is apparently unassailable because it is based on "common sense" rather than looking at any sort of cost/benefit analysis or considering any unintended consquences. If you can't admit the other side has any valid concerns then this discussion will be fruitless. Enjoy your smugness.

Please tell me how suggesting posting cops at liquor stores or using the IRS to audit welfare recipients is NOT moronic and a gross overstatement of my position. Please tell me what is NOT common sense about the fact that most employers require a drug test and that failing a drug test for welfare would also mean you fail one for an employer.

If you want to post overdramatized crap, go right ahead. Just dont cry foul when you get called out on it.




BTW, on and off topic at the same time, a good essay about welfare from the Cato Institute.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending

[bu villain]

I didnt insult you, I insulted your post. the rest of my comments stand. You absolutely hate the fact that there isnt a hole in my logic.

Saying my opinion is moronic and invalid sounds like an insult to me. It's not your logic I disagree with, it is your values. I don't think drug use by welfare recipients is enough of a problem to warrant the proposed solution.


Please tell me how suggesting posting cops at liquor stores or using the IRS to audit welfare recipients is NOT moronic and a gross overstatement of my position. Please tell me what is NOT common sense about the fact that most employers require a drug test and that failing a drug test for welfare would also mean you fail one for an employer.

I didn't suggest posting cops at liquor stores. That was blank.cd. We are not the same person.

As far as auditing welfare recipients. I don't think it is worthwhile and I never said you did either. I was using that as an example so that you could draw a line between what measures you felt were reasonable to prevent welfare abuse and which were not.

In regards to your last statement regarding employers requiring drug test. I don't disagree one bit. I just disagree that all welfare recipients need to get a job (many already have one) and that it is worth the cost to test all of them.


If you want to post overdramatized crap, go right ahead. Just dont cry foul when you get called out on it.

Call out whatever you like. Just do it respectfully please.

[bu villain]

BTW, on and off topic at the same time, a good essay about welfare from the Cato Institute.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending

I agree with many of the points made in there. Private chairities can be more flexible and efficient at helping the poor than large government programs so they certainly have a role to play. But that doesn't mean that the government doesn't also have a role to play as well. They are also on the mark that welfare programs do risk disincentivizing work and creating dependency. A careful balance must be struck and it's next to impossible to eliminate this entirely.

However, I feel there were a number of connections they made that didn't differentiate between corellation and causation and thus led them to some unfounded conclusions. Some examples:

They say "Studies have found that the poor on welfare do not have a strong sense that they need to take charge of their own lives or find work to become self-sufficient." They conclude that welfare caused this mentality but it just as plausible that the causation goes the opposite way. That is people who do not feel the need to take charge of their own lives end up poor and on welfare.

They even admit "Whether or not causation can be proven, it is true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior than are other men". This feeds into the implied assumption that it's always better for a couple to marry, especially if they have a kid. They don't discuss any downsides of marriage out of obligation. They further assert that welfare is the reason why most single mothers don't get married and don't seem to consider other factors such as the women's equality movement.

[BanginJimmy]

Saying my opinion is moronic and invalid sounds like an insult to me.

Are you honestly saying that drug testing welfare recipients is the same as the IRS auditing them and their expenses?




I didn't suggest posting cops at liquor stores. That was blank.cd. We are not the same person.

Where did I suggest you did say that? Notice the whole multi quote thingy? yea, I used that.



As far as auditing welfare recipients. I don't think it is worthwhile and I never said you did either.

But you just said that auditing was your opinion? Which one is it?


I was using that as an example so that you could draw a line between what measures you felt were reasonable to prevent welfare abuse and which were not.

Of course you can draw a line, and you went so far over the line I dont think you ever stopped moving away.


In regards to your last statement regarding employers requiring drug test. I don't disagree one bit. I just disagree that all welfare recipients need to get a job (many already have one) and that it is worth the cost to test all of them.

If you have a job and are still on welfare, then you should be in the hunt for a better job so you can actually support yourself. My point is still 100% valid.

[Spoolincoupe]

Looks like half the people on here wont have money to buy honda parts anymore...

[therzdae]

PRAISE JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FINALLY IM NOT PAYING FOR CRACK BABYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :):):):):):):)

Now can we get school, and children taxes taken off people that cant have kids and wont ever?? its a big waste o money for meh.

[bu villain]

Are you honestly saying that drug testing welfare recipients is the same as the IRS auditing them and their expenses?

No I am not saying they are the same but they ARE both ways to possibly cut down on welfare abuse. I was asking what other reforms you might be in favor of. I was proposing it in an interogative way, not making a statement about anyone's opinion.


Where did I suggest you did say that? Notice the whole multi quote thingy? yea, I used that.

See Post #102. You only quoted me and then started your response with "Please tell me how suggesting posting cops at liquor stores..." That made it seem as if it was directed at me. If only the second half of the sentence was directed at me then I guess I guess we just miscommunicated.


But you just said that auditing was your opinion? Which one is it?

As stated above. It was a topic for discussion, an open ended question. I wasn't saying you or I was advocating it.



Of course you can draw a line, and you went so far over the line I dont think you ever stopped moving away.

The question was, where do you draw the line on what efforts to take to prevent bad choices by welfare recipients? Please answer it.


If you have a job and are still on welfare, then you should be in the hunt for a better job so you can actually support yourself. My point is still 100% valid.

That's a very good point but there are still two things I am looking that you have yet to present:
1) Show evidence that drug use is a significant factor for why welfare recipients continue to be on welfare. You have made a strong case that drug use COULD be a factor in stopping people from getting jobs but not that it actually IS. All the numbers I have heard seem to point to it not being much of an issue.
2) Show the value of drug testing is worth the cost of administering the tests. I need to see numbers here. If drug testing were free, I think your argument would be much more convincing.

[BanginJimmy]

No I am not saying they are the same but they ARE both ways to possibly cut down on welfare abuse. I was asking what other reforms you might be in favor of. I was proposing it in an interogative way, not making a statement about anyone's opinion

My stance has always been the same.
1. Welfare gets a specific time limit, and this applies to ALL programs.
2. No more money for more kids.
3. I would like to see some type of job training program or college benefits. Give people the means to actually get off welfare.




See Post #102. You only quoted me and then started your response with "Please tell me how suggesting posting cops at liquor stores..." That made it seem as if it was directed at me. If only the second half of the sentence was directed at me then I guess I guess we just miscommunicated.

Checks posts 96 and 97 as those are what I was quoting.



The question was, where do you draw the line on what efforts to take to prevent bad choices by welfare recipients? Please answer it.

Easy. You do something illegal your benefits stop. Doing ILLEGAL drugs is ILLEGAL.




That's a very good point but there are still two things I am looking that you have yet to present:
1) Show evidence that drug use is a significant factor for why welfare recipients continue to be on welfare. You have made a strong case that drug use COULD be a factor in stopping people from getting jobs but not that it actually IS. All the numbers I have heard seem to point to it not being much of an issue.

I never said anything even remotely close to drugs being a reason people are on welfare. I said most employers require a drug test. If you cannot pass one for welfare, you cannot pass one for an employer. Welfare is supposed to be TEMPORARY, not a career path. So even if you are working, you obviously need to improve your employment so you can start supporting yourself. Unless you get promoted by your current employer, better employment means a new employer. New employer will likely require a drug test.


2) Show the value of drug testing is worth the cost of administering the tests. I need to see numbers here. If drug testing were free, I think your argument would be much more convincing.

Because of the various programs and income ranges its ahrd to give a firm number, but imagine the various welfare programs pay an average of $500 a month.

With these cups:
http://www.americanscreeningcorp.com/5-Panel-ECO-Cup-wAdulterants-Case-of-25-ALL-P1208C165.aspx

If .5% of tests come back positive and result in a forfeited check, you are saving money.

[bu villain]

My stance has always been the same.
1. Welfare gets a specific time limit, and this applies to ALL programs.
2. No more money for more kids.
3. I would like to see some type of job training program or college benefits. Give people the means to actually get off welfare.

Why do you thinking auditing welfare recipients to make sure they don't have lots of luxury items is idiotic? I think we both agree that if you drive a nice new car, you don't need welfare right?


Easy. You do something illegal your benefits stop. Doing ILLEGAL drugs is ILLEGAL.

Ok so you are saying if you commit any crime, regardless of how serious, you should not be eligible for welfare?


I never said anything even remotely close to drugs being a reason people are on welfare. I said most employers require a drug test. If you cannot pass one for welfare, you cannot pass one for an employer. Welfare is supposed to be TEMPORARY, not a career path. So even if you are working, you obviously need to improve your employment so you can start supporting yourself. Unless you get promoted by your current employer, better employment means a new employer. New employer will likely require a drug test.

This seems to be self contradictory. First you say drugs aren't causing them to be on welfare but then you said they can't get off welfare because they can't pass a drug test to get a better job.



Because of the various programs and income ranges its ahrd to give a firm number, but imagine the various welfare programs pay an average of $500 a month.

If .5% of tests come back positive and result in a forfeited check, you are saving money.

Thanks for providing some numbers. Don't forget administration and disposal fees, should add too much cost though. And how do you handle false positives? Can you ask for a retest?

[BanginJimmy]

Why do you thinking auditing welfare recipients to make sure they don't have lots of luxury items is idiotic? I think we both agree that if you drive a nice new car, you don't need welfare right?

Because it isnt illegal to own a new car. Regulating what luxury items you own is not a valid use of govt power. Drugs are not a luxury item, they are a controlled substance.




Ok so you are saying if you commit any crime, regardless of how serious, you should not be eligible for welfare?

You got me on this one. I should have said felony. If you are found guilty of a felony there should be a mandatory 10 year ban from welfare programs.




This seems to be self contradictory. First you say drugs aren't causing them to be on welfare but then you said they can't get off welfare because they can't pass a drug test to get a better job.

Not at all. Drugs are typically not what put someone on welfare, but because of the inability to pass a drug test, they can keep you on welfare.





Thanks for providing some numbers. Don't forget administration and disposal fees, should add too much cost though. And how do you handle false positives? Can you ask for a retest?

Administration should be easy as these style cups do not require any type of supervision. They test for common adulterants, they display the temp, and they are sealed. If a test comes back negative, the donor unscrews the cap, dumps the urine in the toilet, and tosses the cup in the regular garbage. Urine is not a bio hazardous substance.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25647

Because they cups are sealed, a positive test or a test that contains adulterants is sent off to a lab for actual testing. This testing typically costs between $100 and $150 according to google. Lab tests are about 99.99% accurate even with many common adulterants added.

Punishment is simple.

Pop once, you get your check but are required to take a bi-monthly test for 6 months.
Pop twice, no check, required to attend out patient drug rehab at state expense.
Pop for a third time, banned from all welfare programs for 5 years and turned over to DCFS for kids to be removed from the home.

[.blank cd]

Because of the various programs and income ranges its ahrd to give a firm number, but imagine the various welfare programs pay an average of $500 a month.

With these cups:
http://www.americanscreeningcorp.com/5-Panel-ECO-Cup-wAdulterants-Case-of-25-ALL-P1208C165.aspx

If .5% of tests come back positive and result in a forfeited check, you are saving money.What kind of math are you using?

If there are 10k people on welfare, avg $500 a month, that's $6k a year, that's $60mil in welfare. If it costs $100/pp to cover all costs associated with testing (administration costs, tests, waste disposal, etc., etc.) thats $1mil in testing. If (and that's a big if) .5% of 10k people fail, that's 50 people, that's $5000 in tests, that's $300,000 in welfare.

Youve spent $1,005,000 (per 10k people, per year) to save $300,000 in welfare checks with a net loss of $705,000 because you think you have some moral superiority and don't think people should be smoking weed while on welfare. Still seem like a good investment to you?

[BanginJimmy]

What kind of math are you using?

If there are 10k people on welfare, avg $500 a month, that's $6k a year, that's $60mil in welfare. If it costs $100/pp to cover all costs associated with testing (administration costs, tests, waste disposal, etc., etc.) thats $1mil in testing. If (and that's a big if) .5% of 10k people fail, that's 50 people, that's $5000 in tests, that's $300,000 in welfare.

Youve spent $1,005,000 (per 10k people, per year) to save $300,000 in welfare checks with a net loss of $705,000 because you think you have some moral superiority and don't think people should be smoking weed while on welfare. Still seem like a good investment to you?

1. I never said anything about 100% testing every month.
2. $100 per test couldnt be any more far fetched. Cups, about $3.00 each. Admin costs, very low as no special training is required. Disposal fees are VERY low as no special disposal is required unless a medical condition leads to noticeable blood in urine. Additional lab testing for the positive tests at $150 each is maybe another 40k?
3. My moral, and mental, superiority has nothing to do with it. The laws of the state says they shouldnt smoke weed, not only when they are on welfare, but ever.

[bu villain]

I think Jimmy has made some good points and I can understand where he comes from. I suppose I just have a little more Libertarian view. I really don't want the government monitoring what people put in their bodies.

[BanginJimmy]

I suppose I just have a little more Libertarian view. I really don't want the government monitoring what people put in their bodies.


Its not about monitoring what your average person puts in their body at all. Since you have proven you are not capable of supporting yourself and require actual tax payers to do it for you, it is in the interest of the govt and the tax payers that you keep yourself in a hire-able condition. You volunteer to give up that little bit of privacy in order to get your handouts. No one is forcing you to do anything. This is just like requiring a drivers license an car insurance to drive on public roads.

[bu villain]

Its not about monitoring what your average person puts in their body at all. Since you have proven you are not capable of supporting yourself and require actual tax payers to do it for you, it is in the interest of the govt and the tax payers that you keep yourself in a hire-able condition. You volunteer to give up that little bit of privacy in order to get your handouts. No one is forcing you to do anything. This is just like requiring a drivers license an car insurance to drive on public roads.

As I said before, the goal is a respectable one (make people hireable) but I don't think that all other goals are subordinate to that one. Not to mention I don't think having drug testing will provide any significant increase in making people hireable anyways. To me, welfare is primarily about helping out someone who is struggling, not the government bribing them to do what we want.

[BanginJimmy]

To me, welfare is primarily about helping out someone who is struggling, not the government bribing them to do what we want.


You are right, the purpose is a temporary hand for people that fall on hard times. Too bad it is used as a career path for the lazy and stupid instead.

[blaknoize]

2 absolutely moronic posts in a row.

I understand that you dont have a viable response
but you could do yourself a favor and just not post.

That is viable, that's how these lil "sting" operations show up.

And after scrolling through, I cant delete this post and reply to a more recent one, but it was me with the "post cops" statement, not blankcd or buvillan

[bu villain]

You are right, the purpose is a temporary hand for people that fall on hard times. Too bad it is used as a career path for the lazy and stupid instead.

I don't think the answer is to try and legislate against being lazy and stupid though. There will always be people out there who will be that way. I think we concluded welfare payments average only a few hundred a month. That's not much of a career. If that level of living isn't enough to get someone inspired to do better in their life, I don't think a drug test is going to help either.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't think the answer is to try and legislate against being lazy and stupid though. There will always be people out there who will be that way. I think we concluded welfare payments average only a few hundred a month. That's not much of a career. If that level of living isn't enough to get someone inspired to do better in their life, I don't think a drug test is going to help either.

Using the various welfare programs, a single mother with 3 kids and a part time minimum wage job has more disposable income than a married couple with 2 kids and making a combined 60k a year.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[bu villain]

Using the various welfare programs, a single mother with 3 kids and a part time minimum wage job has more disposable income than a married couple with 2 kids and making a combined 60k a year.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


I would like to see how that conclusion was reached but how does drug testing change that anyways?

[.blank cd]

I would like to see how that conclusion was reached but how does drug testing change that anyways?

I've seen the chart before. It's VERY far reaching.

[BanginJimmy]

I've seen the chart before. It's VERY far reaching.

Of course its far reaching, but it is legitimate in some areas of the country. The one I am thinking of was from NYC and a sizable portion of it was rent controls.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2