mandatory drug testing for welfare.

[bara]

Here is my idea.

Just dont give them money. Instead of EBT cards, lets set up food banks. Any bills they want to pay will have to go through a welfare office first such as heating, electric, house payments, insurance, and other necessities. Sorry, you dont get cable TV or cellphones with data plans.

Clothes.. No problem, they can have goodwill vouchers or something that can only be redeemed for clothes at a specific goodwill with picture verification. (Sorry, but those nikes for 200 dollars a shoe arent necessary.) Personal peeve of mine here... No fancy cadilac, not yours. Get a used car and actually change the oil everynow and then, it works wonders on engine life.

If the whole issue is money, then dont give them any. Problem solved.

[Evandril]

Heh, I've got an idea...Have anyone who wants to vote in favor of the idea sign off on a personal tax increase of 10x the amount they owe the government, before all the deductions come in. After all, if paying *3000* times what you're saving is good, only having to give the government 10x in order to help fund it is quite a savings...

Anyone care to put odds on the idea passing?

[Andara Bledin]

Drugs are used as such a hobgoblin. Those in power can cry "OMG, they use DRUGS!" and their unthinking followers will parrot, "OMG, DRUGS!" and they just go after whoever is pointed at. Even better if the one raising the cry can go "OMG, DRUGS with YOUR MONEY!" while doing his best to make them all ignore the fact that going after those people will not only cost hundreds of times more money, but that money will be going into his pockets.

This is more stupid voters voting for feel-good measures that don't stand up to even moderate scrutiny.

This initiative was already tried, not 2 decades ago, and scrapped for being wasteful and unproductive.

But here we are, going through round 2 because the people who vote are too fucking stupid to do even rudimentary research because they've swallowed the media line of "drugs are bad" and react with fear rather than intelligence.

^-.-^

[Evandril]

I was in favor of this idea...Until I saw the results. Now I believe it's a waste of money, and needs to be stopped. *shrugs*

[FArchivist]

Preliminary figures on a new Florida law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be submitting specimens.

Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called "a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on board.

"There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column.

[FArchivist]

again people keep forgetting that you don't test every single person individually.

seriously. the military does it all the time - you test one multi-sample and then only test individual bottles IF someone pops positive.

but hey why let logic spoil the fun right? i mean sure... let's say it costs $10 to run a single test and you have 100 people to test. so you assume you'll spend $1000.

wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. You only spend that much if you test every single sample.
let's pretend the piss test box holds 10 each. o look then you only test 10 times cos you have 10 boxes. that's just $100, one tenth of the costs.

but hey sure, test every single bottle if you want. me i'd rather be efficient

Actually, you are incorrect on how the military does tests. Here is the procedure:

First, individuals initial the label on their own bottles. The bottles are boxed into batches, and the test administrator begins a chain-of-custody document for each batch. The chain-of-custody requirement continues in the lab as well. People who come in contact with each sample and what exactly they do to the sample are written on the document. All samples are kept with the batch they came in to preserve the chain of evidence.

After arrival at the lab, the batch is separated into its individual samples. The samples then undergo an initial immunoassay screening (using the Olympus AU-800 Automated Chemistry Analyzer). Those that test positive for the presence of drugs at this point undergo the same screen once again. Finally, those that come up positive during two screening tests are put through a much more specific gas chromatography/mass spectrometry test. This test can identify specific substances within the urine samples.

Even if a particular drug is detected, if the level is below a certain threshold, the test result is reported back to the commander as negative.

DoD labs are equipped to test for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, LSD, opiates (including morphine and heroin), barbiturates and PCP. But not all samples are tested for all of these drugs. Every sample gets tested for marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines, including ecstasy. Tests for other drugs are done at random on different schedules for each lab. Some laboratories do test every sample for every drug.

Commanders can request samples be tested for steroids. In this case, the samples are sent to the Olympic testing laboratory at the University of California at Los Angeles.

So yes, the DOD tests the samples individually. The samples are sent to the labs in batches and the samples remain together, but the samples are actually tested individually.

[FArchivist]

Welfare is suppose to be a hand-up to get yourself OUT of the situation. But people are using it as a means of life. We need to STOP ignoring that truth just because it might not be "politically correct."

Then perhaps we need to outlaw welfare. The courts do not recognize it as a right in accordance with the Constitution. All you need to do to get rid of welfare is have the legislature repeal it. Then get it signed by your Governor.

Personally, I don't begrudge the $3-400 a welfare recipient gets per month in my state. Yes, that's with 3 children.

The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand - that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights'.

You are aware that Starship Troopers was satirical and wasn't meant to be taken seriously?

But really what's the biggest entitlement issue out there? People who expect to have whatever luxury they want, drugs, booze ... on OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. THAT'S entitlement. Expecting to keep your lifestyle the same, expecting to hold on to your right to get stoned... and have everyone else chip in to cover your expenses and bills.

Then it's a good thing you can't use welfare money to buy drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol, isn't it?

it's all about "their rights" herp derp.

For me, it's about being charitable. And recognizing that private charities aren't very good at it.

[Rageaholic]

you know it's weird really.

Society has decided that if you're rich you somehow gained this wealth wrongfully. You don't deserve it. if you pay for what you use, you're wrong.

But if you suck on the government's tits and do drugs or do nothing to advance yourself... that's your "right"

And that is a strawman.

The problem with the rich is that they pay less taxes than the poor and middle class. THEY get the tax breaks while the middle class pays the most just for trying to get buy. That is not only unfair, but incredibly stupid. Who needs a break more, the million and billionaires, or the average Joe?

As for the poor "sucking on the governments tits", what else are they supposed to do when they can't find work and any work they can find pays barely enough to get buy? Remember, we're still in a recession so it's not as if everyone can find a job easily. I don't support the drug users using tax money, but if it comes down to supporting a few bad apples and making the others pay, I would rather support the few bad apples.

And I really really hate the "entitlement" arguement.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

again people keep forgetting that you don't test every single person individually.

Funny, everyone who works at Advance Auto Parts gets tested before being hired. There is no random sampling there.

The Hospitals I have worked at in the past (Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Peninsula Regional, St Mary's) have all had all applicants piss in a cup before working there. No random sampling there...everyone

And the gist of the thing is that you have to be tested before going on welfare. Again no random sampling.

And even if this was a random sample then it still is a waste of money as the projected costs for this project is 178 million with an expected savings of 60,000.

So random or not, you're still spending three grand to save one @#$%ing buck.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

[Andara Bledin]

again people keep forgetting that you don't test every single person individually.

Wrong.

They test every single person that enters the system. That's what the whole "Mandatory" part in the title means.

And every one that passes gets that money reimbursed by the state out of the fund that should be going to helping people not starve.

but hey sure, test every single bottle if you want. me i'd rather be efficient

Are we having the same conversation? This thread is about the state requiring people to get tested before they can get welfare. Where do bottles enter into it?

I still say before any of this goes down they need to establish the difference between doing drugs and buying drugs. Huge difference.

Oh, yeah, and my favorite part is that if you take something that isn't legal that someone gives you, you can't get on the program, but if you buy prescription drugs off the black market, you're a-ok, 'cause they won't be testing for those.

It's a half-assed feel-good measure to pander to the raving anti-drug-use people who can't stop frothing at the mouth long enough to do the math.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

I still say before any of this goes down they need to establish the difference between doing drugs and buying drugs. Huge difference.

[tropicsgoddess]

So, if you had $80,000 to use to feed hungry people, you'd be ok with handing $2,000 of that over to some unrelated third party and taking it away from 100 other people who now can't even try to get into the program so some person who happened to test positive for drugs couldn't walk off with $20?

Really?

Because, honestly, that's just stupid.

Here's an article about the pilot program Florida tried out back in 1998. You know what they found out when they ran it? It cost more to try to weed out the few drug users than to just let them have the money. And, their kids would still get the money, so it's not like the drug users were actually losing anything. They'd have a proxy get the funds, then they could spend it however they wanted.

So they axed it for being wasteful and counterproductive and not doing a damn thing to stop people from getting drugs with the money.

But, hey, why bother to learn from history when you can make the same stupid mistakes your predecessors did, instead. After all, you're smarter than they were, so you won't fail as badly as they did, right?

Oh, wait...

^-.-^

When Florida mandated that welfare recipients take drug tests to qualify for and keep their welfare benefits, they had a provision where if the recipient didn't pass their drug test, the benefits can go to a qualified relative. I'm all for helping people don't get me wrong but really all this is about is helping those who help themselves.

[PepperElf]

again people keep forgetting that you don't test every single person individually.

seriously. the military does it all the time - you test one multi-sample and then only test individual bottles IF someone pops positive.

but hey why let logic spoil the fun right? i mean sure... let's say it costs $10 to run a single test and you have 100 people to test. so you assume you'll spend $1000.

wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. You only spend that much if you test every single sample.
let's pretend the piss test box holds 10 each. o look then you only test 10 times cos you have 10 boxes. that's just $100, one tenth of the costs.

but hey sure, test every single bottle if you want. me i'd rather be efficient

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

As with anything, it is about money.

The toll booths on the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey was (last time I was living there) costing 80 cents out of each dollar collected to collect that said dollar. Meaning that for every dollar collected, only 20 cents went to road maintenance.

Some of the less honest charities are the same way. Only 10 to 30 cents out of each dollar collected actually goes to help the target of the charity.

In this case, best case scenario of the $60,000 saved, for every dollar "saved" costs $2,966.67 to save it. That's a bit worse than Andara's estimate of 1,000 to 1, that's almost 3,000 to 1.

Would I have a problem with drug testing to keep people off of welfare that were abusing the system? Not if the situation were reversed. If it cost $1 to save the aforementioned $3,000 (or even as low as $100) it would be a good thing.

But I like others have a problem with spending $3,000 just so you can brag that you're saving a scrummy buck.

And also one needs to remember that for every one person or family that abuses the welfare system, there are more people who use it as it was intended. People like me and my family. I was on food assistance when my wife and I were working the only jobs that were left in our area. Rural New Hampshire is a nice place to retire if you have money and don't need to work, but the jobs are not there. So when my company dried up and closed its doors (and the Doctor that my wife was working for retired) we had to take minimum wage jobs. With three kids to boot we were in a pickle.

We could do three of the four.

Feed ourselves
Clothe ourselves
Keep a roof over our heads
Keep the house warm in the winter.

Going on food assistance kept us afloat until I was able to same some money for the moving expenses and could find a job out of state in an area that was better off economically.

I was on that for a year and I got off of it. For us, it was what it was designed for. It was a little help when we needed it, a hand to pull us onto our feet, dust us off, and send us on our way.

I'm not the only family that does that. You have to remember that the media loves a disaster story. It loves train wrecks. This is why you always hear of the crack addicted mother who cranks out babies just so she can have more money in her welfare check.

You rarely hear of the family that lost their means of support and their house, goes on welfare, gets a cheap place to live, finds a job and pulls themselves up by their bootstraps unless it's a glurge piece to blow sunshine up our asses when the ratings dip because they're being too depressing.

Or when Will Smith wants to make a "Feel-Good" movie.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm all for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. I don't want my tax dollars going to support and/or enable somebody to sit on their ass, continue their drug habit(s) and not get a job. If I have to take drug tests to get a job, so should they.

So, if you had $80,000 to use to feed hungry people, you'd be ok with handing $2,000 of that over to some unrelated third party and taking it away from 100 other people who now can't even try to get into the program so some person who happened to test positive for drugs couldn't walk off with $20?

Really?

Because, honestly, that's just stupid.

Here's an article about the pilot program Florida tried out back in 1998. You know what they found out when they ran it? It cost more to try to weed out the few drug users than to just let them have the money. And, their kids would still get the money, so it's not like the drug users were actually losing anything. They'd have a proxy get the funds, then they could spend it however they wanted.

So they axed it for being wasteful and counterproductive and not doing a damn thing to stop people from getting drugs with the money.

But, hey, why bother to learn from history when you can make the same stupid mistakes your predecessors did, instead. After all, you're smarter than they were, so you won't fail as badly as they did, right?

Oh, wait...

^-.-^