Drug testing and entitlements.

[eraser4g63]

Why are so many groups against drug testing entitlement recipients (ie: welfare, unemployment, Medicaid, snap/foodstamps/WIC)? I want to hear a logical argument why it's ok for these people to be using drugs while I'm helping to support them. I'm not so much worried about dependents, I'm talking the adults in the household.

[Sinfix_15]

Because that would be stereotyping those people. We must at all costs take every effort known to man to prevent hurting anyone's feelings. potentially offending a welfare recipient is much more important than keeping the money you worked for in your pocket.

[MeFryRice]

This is pathetic and insulting is what it is. Why should the working class have to support those that are on welfare and enjoying drugs? A former employee was receiving unemployment, declining job offers and working for a friend under the table. I just found out last week that he is now under investigation.

[eraser4g63]

My brain hurts because of the sarcasm in that statement. I actually read that in Neil Bortz's voice.

[Sinfix_15]

My brain hurts because of the sarcasm in that statement. I actually read that in Neil Bortz's voice.

i pride myself on being relentlessly sarcastic.

[.blank cd]

Because with current laws, drug testing doesn't solve anything at all period. It has already been proven that it cost more money than it saves. Not only that, it's unconstitutional.

[.blank cd]

I actually haven't heard a well thought out argument for it.

[Sinfix_15]

Because with current laws, drug testing doesn't solve anything at all period. It has already been proven that it cost more money than it saves. Not only that, it's unconstitutional.

Irony....... An Obama supporter who rejects an idea based on the notion that it cost more money than it saves and is unconstitutional.

[BanginJimmy]

Because with current laws, drug testing doesn't solve anything at all period. It has already been proven that it cost more money than it saves. Not only that, it's unconstitutional.

Yes, it costs more money than it saves. What part is unconstitutional? No one is forcing the leaches to take an unearned handout. Drug testing would simply be a condition of accepting the unearned handout.

I actually haven't heard a well thought out argument for it.

I've made this argument before several times so I will give the condensed version.

If you arent working, or not working in a job that you can support yourself and your spawn on, you should be looking for better employment. If you are looking for better employment you will be required to take a drug test. If you are purposefully doing something that will prevent you from passing that drug test, you arent really looking for that job. If you arent looking for that job to support yourself, WTF am I supporting you?

[.blank cd]

Yes, it costs more money than it saves. What part is unconstitutional?

So why bother with administrating a policy like this if a. It costs tax payers MORE money than if they just left them alone?
The unconstitutional part is the collection of specimens without a warrant. Legal process.

I've made this argument before several times so I will give the condensed version.

If you arent working, or not working in a job that you can support yourself and your spawn on, you should be looking for better employment. If you are looking for better employment you will be required to take a drug test. If you are purposefully doing something that will prevent you from passing that drug test, you arent really looking for that job. If you arent looking for that job to support yourself, WTF am I supporting you?

So tell me this: what's the difference between someone who is ill and prescribed medical MJ and needs the assistance, and someone who is a chronic alcoholic, who doesn't need the assistance, because guess who passes the drug test?

[Sinfix_15]

So why bother with administrating a policy like this if a. It costs tax payers MORE money than if they just left them alone?
The unconstitutional part is the collection of specimens without a warrant. Legal process.


So tell me this: what's the difference between someone who is ill and prescribed medical MJ and needs the assistance, and someone who is a chronic alcoholic, who doesn't need the assistance, because guess who passes the drug test?

They wouldnt need to collect any specimens without a warrant. Specimens would be volunteered to receive government aid. If a person doesnt wish to offer a specimen, they are more than free to do so..... and find a job that doesnt drug test or become self employed.

My job didnt have a warrant to give me a drug test, yet it was a stipulation of my employment. Is that unconstitutional? We're allowed to test people who are working for their money but not those who are just receiving it?

[EP3si02]

i dont think it costs more than it saves. you can get a drug test anywhere from $10.00-$75.00 at the store, what does the average recipient receive?? a couple hundred dollars. To me it is worth spending the cost of the drug test to save on the payouts. not to mention the extra jobs it would create for people administering those tests.

and to answer you question blank (in my opinion) i dont think there is a difference between the two, neither one is illegal. If the person is taking prescribed medical MJ then they are in possession of it legally and can provide medical documents as to why the otherwise illegal drug is in their system.
and even though chronic alcoholism is a disease, the last time i checked alcohol is still legal. but in your scenario they dont need the assistance so it doesn't matter.

[quickdodge®]

Drug testing would simply be a condition of accepting the unearned handout.

Basically much in the same manner as employers requiring applicants to submit to drug testing. Same thing pretty much.

[.blank cd]

i dont think it costs more than it saves. you can get a drug test anywhere from $10.00-$75.00 at the store, what does the average recipient receive?? a couple hundred dollars. To me it is worth spending the cost of the drug test to save on the payouts. not to mention the extra jobs it would create for people administering those tests.

and to answer you question blank (in my opinion) i dont think there is a difference between the two, neither one is illegal. If the person is taking prescribed medical MJ then they are in possession of it legally and can provide medical documents as to why the otherwise illegal drug is in their system.
and even though chronic alcoholism is a disease, the last time i checked alcohol is still legal. but in your scenario they dont need the assistance so it doesn't matter.

Unfortunately the math and the states that already do it says it does. Studies show the percentage of people below the poverty line that use illicit drugs is in line with the general population. That means welfare recipients aren't any more likely to use drugs than the average person. Studies also show that most illicit drug users are already gainfully employed.

The average cost, just to test, is about $40-50, not including the cost of hiring government employees, ensuring confidentiality, and readministering tests to guard against false positives like passive exposure, legal substances like codeine and poppy seeds. A lot of private employers are also abandoning the practice because of the costs of catching one person on drugs. A lot of examples show the positive test rate is, most of the time, less than 2% and in some cases less than 1%

Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse, the most commonly abused substance among Americans, and are most likely to detect marijuana use since the active ingredient in marijuana stays in the body’s system longer than any other illicit substance. Therefore, drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days. Since a urinalysis test targets MJ users, and since there are quite a few users of MJ stripping away their benefits can negatively impact their families and childrens well being. All the while, chronic alcohol and cigarettes get a hall pass.

Michigan attempted to implement mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients back in 2003, and was challenged by the ACLU. It was deemed by the sixth circuit court of Michigan as a violation of the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. In the case of Marchwinski v. Howard, the plaintiff failed to identify a "special need for a suspicionless search" (e.g. Taking a piss sample voluntarily)

Where do you draw the line with benefits? Since welfare recipients are just people getting money from the government, does everyone who recieve a government benefit get tested? And how do you test that staggering amount of people? On an interesting note, It was discovered after Florida implemented a similar program, the wife of Gov Rick Scott was heavily invested in some pharmaceutical companies, the ones who make testing equipment for drug screenings.

So drug testing welfare recipients does nothing. It doesn't save taxpayer money, it fails to identify or solve any drug use problem, its set up to make a few people very wealthy, and it provides to, at least to its supporters, a false sense of security.

[MeFryRice]

Looks like you copied and pasted that.

[.blank cd]

Looks like you copied and pasted that.

Thank you!

[BanginJimmy]

stripping away their benefits can negatively impact their families and childrens well being.

Just like last time this came up, this is nothing more than a cop out. Cant hold the parents responsible for their actions because they had kids they cant take care of.

All the while, chronic alcohol and cigarettes get a hall pass.

While your point is valid, there is one significant difference. Alcohol and cigs are legal while marijuana and other drugs are not.

[.blank cd]

Just like last time this came up, this is nothing more than a cop out. Cant hold the parents responsible for their actions because they had kids they cant take care of.

So if a guy with a family that has a low paying job that smokes a joint once in a while with his friends, should be kicked off welfare, and that's a cop out?

While your point is valid, there is one significant difference. Alcohol and cigs are legal while marijuana and other drugs are not.

Why single out weed when alcohol and cigarettes are demonstrably more dangerous and more addictive and demonstrably affects job performance more adversely?

Ask yourself what the ultimate goal of drug testing welfare recipients is, half of the time you'll get "to save taxpayer money". It has been real world tested to be more expensive to tax payers than not. It's that simple. The other half of the time you'll get "if I have to get drug tested to get a job, welfare recipients should too" which in it self isn't an argument at all. Basically it boils down to you want it just so it makes you feel better, regardless of the costs involved, regardless of the freedoms it imposes on.

Kinda sounds like the TSA

[BanginJimmy]

So if a guy with a family that has a low paying job that smokes a joint once in a while with his friends, should be kicked off welfare, and that's a cop out?

So you think I should be responsible for the guys family so he doesnt have to be? Maybe he should find something more more constructive to do with his time. Maybe even get some additional schooling or training so he could actually support himself without govt handouts.

Why single out weed when alcohol and cigarettes are demonstrably more dangerous and more addictive and demonstrably affects job performance more adversely?

Simple, legality. You get a bill into congress to ban cigs and alcohol and I will support it.

Ask yourself what the ultimate goal of drug testing welfare recipients is, half of the time you'll get "to save taxpayer money". It has been real world tested to be more expensive to tax payers than not. It's that simple. The other half of the time you'll get "if I have to get drug tested to get a job, welfare recipients should too" which in it self isn't an argument at all.

Or many its about simple responsibility. If you are doing something you KNOW will inhibit your chances to support yourself, then you arent trying to support yourself. Welfare is supposed to be a temporary thing while you get back on your feet. Its not meant to be a lifestyle.

Basically it boils down to you want it just so it makes you feel better, regardless of the costs involved, regardless of the freedoms it imposes on.

Kinda sounds like the TSA

What freedoms does it impose on? Drug tests for handouts are no more an imposition than a background check or a test to get your drivers licesnse.

[.blank cd]

So you think I should be responsible for the guys family so he doesnt have to be? Maybe he should find something more more constructive to do with his time. Maybe even get some additional schooling or training so he could actually support himself without govt handouts.

Is a guy who works 12hrs a day at a low paying job to put food on his table and a roof over his head suddenly irresponsible because he smoked a joint? Would the same guy be equally irresponsible if he worked 8hrs a day and made $100k/year? Knowing that its present in the system for a month, you can smoke one joint for less than $20 and get disqualified. If I spent $20/month on a CD, or going to the movies, or buying bottle of wine instead of buying food or putting it toward the light bill, does that make me equally irresponsible? If my friends paid for it instead of me since I'm not making much money, does smoking a free joint make me irresponsible? Or is it the notion of committing a misdemeanor make me irresponsible: Since speeding is a misdemeanor crime in GA, am I equally irresponsible doing 12+ the speed limit? Should I be taken off welfare in this case?

Or many its about simple responsibility. If you are doing something you KNOW will inhibit your chances to support yourself, then you arent trying to support yourself. Welfare is supposed to be a temporary thing while you get back on your feet. Its not meant to be a lifestyle.

So pretty much is its only wrong because its illegal

What freedoms does it impose on? Drug tests for handouts are no more an imposition than a background check or a test to get your drivers licesnse.

According to Marchwinski v. Howard, your fourth amendment ones. Background checks, consequently, are not the same as a search and seizure of your personal property, in this case, your blood, hair, and urine.

[Vteckidd]

The problem with it is the assumption that every person collecting Welfare/UE is a drug user capable of working. Thats simply not true.

I argued this months ago and Im not going to go dig the study up, but a bipartisan firm released a report on some numbers out of FL who does do drug testing. less than 1% of the people on welfare failed drug tests, and they have to give you a 2 week notice before testing you. Not only that, there is no way to detect narcotics such as cocaine, heroin, X, etc. Urine tests are one thing, the medical costs associated with blood tests is far more costly than actually stopping the person abusing the system.

Once you factor in the medical staffing, testing procedures and what it will actually SAVE people, it actually ends up COSTING the state and tax payer money.

Theres a much simpler way to solve the problem, welfare or UE should be limited to X amount of weeks. PERIOD. Force people to look for work. YOu have to work at mcdonalds? Sucks, but welfare and UE are only there to help you between jobs, not a for life program IMO

[.blank cd]

So you think I should be responsible for the guys family so he doesnt have to be?

And if you spend more in taxes than you're saving, you're even MORE responsible! LOL.

[.blank cd]

-Spend money on job training
-spend money to combat the system abusers
-spend money making school grants accessible to more people

ALL of those are better, more responsible, solutions that would get a better return on the investment than the reactionary solution of drug testing welfare recipients

[Vteckidd]

Ive come to the realization that there will always be abusers when it comes to govt programs. That is the way of the world.

[.blank cd]

Or to put it in more "conservative" terms:

"Why should I work hard to pay fer drug users piss tests?"

edit: Spelling

[Sinfix_15]

Unfortunately the math and the states that already do it says it does. Studies show the percentage of people below the poverty line that use illicit drugs is in line with the general population. That means welfare recipients aren't any more likely to use drugs than the average person. Studies also show that most illicit drug users are already gainfully employed.

The average cost, just to test, is about $40-50, not including the cost of hiring government employees, ensuring confidentiality, and readministering tests to guard against false positives like passive exposure, legal substances like codeine and poppy seeds. A lot of private employers are also abandoning the practice because of the costs of catching one person on drugs. A lot of examples show the positive test rate is, most of the time, less than 2% and in some cases less than 1%

Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse, the most commonly abused substance among Americans, and are most likely to detect marijuana use since the active ingredient in marijuana stays in the body’s system longer than any other illicit substance. Therefore, drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days. Since a urinalysis test targets MJ users, and since there are quite a few users of MJ stripping away their benefits can negatively impact their families and childrens well being. All the while, chronic alcohol and cigarettes get a hall pass.

Michigan attempted to implement mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients back in 2003, and was challenged by the ACLU. It was deemed by the sixth circuit court of Michigan as a violation of the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. In the case of Marchwinski v. Howard, the plaintiff failed to identify a "special need for a suspicionless search" (e.g. Taking a piss sample voluntarily)

Where do you draw the line with benefits? Since welfare recipients are just people getting money from the government, does everyone who recieve a government benefit get tested? And how do you test that staggering amount of people? On an interesting note, It was discovered after Florida implemented a similar program, the wife of Gov Rick Scott was heavily invested in some pharmaceutical companies, the ones who make testing equipment for drug screenings.

So drug testing welfare recipients does nothing. It doesn't save taxpayer money, it fails to identify or solve any drug use problem, its set up to make a few people very wealthy, and it provides to, at least to its supporters, a false sense of security.

I reluctantly agree that drug testing isnt a realistic proposal and wouldnt accomplish much anyways. It just sucks having no control over what the government does with your money. The government isnt capable of enforcing the type of regulations that SHOULD be in place, which is exactly why they should start shrinking their programs. Everything the government controls is expensive, ineffective and poorly ran, yet they want to control and run everything. If i go spend my money to have my car painted, i can select the shop that i feel will do the best job for the right price. With the government, we're forced to pay top dollar for the shittiest service in town and we have no choice in the matter. If the welfare program doesnt have the staff or resources to assist people with finding jobs, train them for said jobs and regulate reasonable restrictions for welfare applicants, then there shouldnt be a welfare system. We need less government programs across the board. Certain things need to be ran by people who are more invested in the results.........

We're sitting here having a conversation about whether or not it's constitutional to drug test someone who is having the government pay for their living.... how about asking if it's constitutional for me to be forced to buy into these flawed and failing government programs?

[Sinfix_15]

Or to put it in more "conservative" terms:

"Why should I work hard to pay fer drug users piss tests?"

edit: Spelling

In "liberal" terms....

"how i spose to care for deez 6 babies and put up wit my 3 baby daddies if i caint get my smoke on.... one sec let me take dis call.... no dis aint no iphone fool i got dat samsung galaxy... wake up wake up it's the first of the month.... get up get up, yo anybody wanna buy some stamps, i gotta get my nails did so i can look fly at the club tonight"

[nelson9995]

I reluctantly agree that drug testing isnt a realistic proposal and wouldnt accomplish much anyways. It just sucks having no control over what the government does with your money. The government isnt capable of enforcing the type of regulations that SHOULD be in place, which is exactly why they should start shrinking their programs. Everything the government controls is expensive, ineffective and poorly ran, yet they want to control and run everything. If i go spend my money to have my car painted, i can select the shop that i feel will do the best job for the right price. With the government, we're forced to pay top dollar for the shittiest service in town and we have no choice in the matter. If the welfare program doesnt have the staff or resources to assist people with finding jobs, train them for said jobs and regulate reasonable restrictions for welfare applicants, then there shouldnt be a welfare system. We need less government programs across the board. Certain things need to be ran by people who are more invested in the results.........

We're sitting here having a conversation about whether or not it's constitutional to drug test someone who is having the government pay for their living.... how about asking if it's constitutional for me to be forced to buy into these flawed and failing government programs?

Believe it or not... When it comes to welfare and Gov't assistance programs, I feel the same way you, vteckidd, etc feel.
TOO many people abuse it. I personally know many that make $1500+ biweekly yet live in projects, receive $800 is foodstamps for their kids, SSI checks, etc...
These programs have been abused generation after generation.
Did you guys ever hear about the Puerto Rican family in FL that got caught with 3 generations living off welfare, and they had a family business. A car shop to be more specific.
This is what happens.
BTW, every single person I know on welfare has a smartphone, a nice car, nice TV's, and more vacations than I do lol.

I guess all these people also plan on living off welfare forever. I see no motive to get up and look for a job (for the unemployed ones, or ones with shitty jobs), no motive to go to school or better themselves. They simply believe they will be able to live off welfare, and so will their kids, and kid's kids, and so on. It's sad really.

I believe the solution is to make it 6 months for example. In those months you better prepare yourself, find a job, go to school, or find you a sugar daddy lol.

[E36slide]

Either way you look your tax dollars will have to pay for them to a) be lazy and sit at home hitting the rock eating microwave dinners. B) pay for the crack heads to be tested so that they can't eat microwave dinners.

One drug test isn't as expensive as funding that one person to live. I say if they fail they can't re do their gov assistance for a another year. I'm sure if they were to do drug test randomly half the people applying for assistance would fail. (Believe you me half my family that I don't associate with uses assistance and would no doubt fail a drug test)

I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on testing then on supporting someone capable of working. I work a job I don't want to but that's life. There is no reason someone can't work if they have no health issues.

[RandomGuy]

I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on testing then on supporting someone capable of working. I work a job I don't want to but that's life. There is no reason someone can't work if they have no health issues.

and the hole gets deeper... Not working = more health issues

[BanginJimmy]

Ive come to the realization that there will always be abusers when it comes to govt programs. That is the way of the world.

Couldnt we just end the programs then? Call it a luxury we cant afford.

[Sinfix_15]

Couldnt we just end the programs then? Call it a luxury we cant afford.

how will dems buy voters then?

[bu villain]

Couldnt we just end the programs then? Call it a luxury we cant afford.

The problem is the programs that are abused are the same programs that actually help people who they were designed to help. We should always be vigilant on make the programs more effective but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[BanginJimmy]

The problem is the programs that are abused are the same programs that actually help people who they were designed to help. We should always be vigilant on make the programs more effective but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

With their current structure, welfare programs dont really seem to help as much as they hurt. Welfare programs encourage dependence on the govt and the govt does its absolute best to expand them and create even more dependency. It seems that every year the eligibility gets broader and the restrictions smaller.

[.blank cd]

LIKE IF THINKING HURTS YOUR BRAIN

[Sinfix_15]

The problem is the programs that are abused are the same programs that actually help people who they were designed to help. We should always be vigilant on make the programs more effective but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

You cant just make it rain and hope some falls in the collection plate either.

1-7 people are on food stamps in america. If 1 out of every 7 people cant afford to feed themselves..... then we have a really big problem.

[Sinfix_15]

if you care so much about social programs, start a charity to support them. This shouldnt be something that is forced on everyone. Just like you see those commercials at 2-3 in the morning asking you to save some starving kid in africa.....

you could have your own commercial that sounds a little something like this.

"hello america, i'm blankCD. I'm standing here in front of rucker park housing projects with Tyrone who has recently been fired from 3 different fast food jobs, in addition to that, Tyrone's hoe hasnt turned a trick in weeks and the weed business is running dry. Tyrone's "donk" only has 22's on it and he still has a projection tv in his house. Tyrone hasnt been to red lobster in 3 weeks. Tyrone has been relegated to drinking natural light cans when you know that he usually drinks Colt45. For crippling large percentages of your paycheck that you work for, you could put a colt back in Tyrone's hand and help him get that flat screen he's been thinking about stealing. One thing we can guarantee Tyrone will not spend your donation on...... condoms. Find it in your hearts to pick up the phone and donate. "

[bu villain]

With their current structure, welfare programs dont really seem to help as much as they hurt. Welfare programs encourage dependence on the govt and the govt does its absolute best to expand them and create even more dependency. It seems that every year the eligibility gets broader and the restrictions smaller.

You cant just make it rain and hope some falls in the collection plate either.

1-7 people are on food stamps in america. If 1 out of every 7 people cant afford to feed themselves..... then we have a really big problem.

I'm not saying there is no problem, only that the solution is not dissolving the programs entirely. It is reforming them to be more effective.

if you care so much about social programs, start a charity to support them. This shouldnt be something that is forced on everyone.

That's not necessary because as a country we have decided that some social programs should be run at a government level. This is how a representative democracy works. The people elect officials who pass legislation that everyone abides by. If you don't like it you elect people who will repeal it. You don't unilaterally get to decide which programs you want to join or abstain from funding.

[E36slide]

[.blank cd]

Any kind of government handout? Be very careful how you answer that.