mandatory drug testing for welfare.

[linguist]

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.

so you're ok with spending millions of tax dollars in order to potentially save a few thousand tax dollars?

If I have to take drug tests to get a job, so should they.

the day your job forces you to pay for your own drug test is the day this analogy becomes valid. until then, it's meaningless.

[tropicsgoddess]

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.

[Andara Bledin]

The way things are going .... people who are in dire poverty and need food, fine... but the ones who feel they're ENTITLED to live high on the hog and not pay for what they take? fuck them. cut them off without a single tear.

Great idea.

Now find a way to do that that doesn't cost more to run than it stops going out, because this isn't it.

Once you've spent a dime more than you would have lost, you've spent too much, and this is a case of spending more than 1000 times as much as has been retained. Anyone who has the figures and still argues in favor of it is either stupid or getting something from it.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

did i put something in your mouth?

i was just relaying my sarcasm at the whole notion that drug testing is going to hurt the kids.

although.... perhaps not. the entire goal of the idea is to stop people from milking welfare for personal gain. and by personal gain i don't mean "staying alive' but sucking off of the government's tits while they support drug habits etc or resell g'ment food for profit.


Then again as for the cost there's ways around that.

1) How often it's done - I say twice a year. And that if you fail you can't get back on to welfare until the next testing period.

2) Why do you assume every single bottle has to get tested individually? You can easily take a batch of bottles, take a sample from each and then run ONE test. If everyone's clear then it's good to go. You only do individual tests if the batch test pops positive.


and then it's good for the children too. you keep the costs down, cut off the druggies so then there's more money to feed the children.


i mean yes i was being very sarcastic above but it's NOT an invalid point.
The way things are going .... people who are in dire poverty and need food, fine... but the ones who feel they're ENTITLED to live high on the hog and not pay for what they take? fuck them. cut them off without a single tear.



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"

[Andara Bledin]

Ah, yes, we've moved on to the "putting words in my mouth" portion of the show.

What I actually said is that this is a worse that useless solution to what amounts to a minuscule problem that should be a lot farther down the priorities list.

We've got people starving to death in the streets because we don't have the resources to take care of everybody, but we have the wherewithal to toss hundreds of millions of dollars out of the system entirely on a program that was suspect before it even got started.

Currently, the best option is to let the few drug users out there go for now. We don't have the right conditions to chase them down without it being a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory.

This "solution" should only make sense to the self-righteous who don't actually need to work with the system and those who are bad at math.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

so the only "viable" answer is ... support drug users and let tax payers pay for the drug use.

lovely.

Hell i should just quit my shitty job and go on welfare and do drugs instead. why should i pay for what i want when i can get society to pay my way. why work when i can get what i want for free and it'll "cost too much" to stop me from abusing the system.

[Andara Bledin]

Mandatory drug testing sounds like a good way to start.

Sure, it sounds good. But realistically all it does is throw a lot of money into the pockets of people who don't need it and take it away from those who do. Did you not notice the 9-digit figure going to the testing places over this? With about 3% being money that would have gone to "druggies."

We're not saving any money with this initiative. Fuck, we might as well just burn $175,000,000.00 and do nothing else and we'd still have $5,000,000.00 more than if we keep going with the current plan.

In what world does spending more than $180,000,000.00 to save less than $100,000.00 make any sense? You know, besides the one where the guy pushing the initiative is also one of the primary beneficiaries of that $180,000,000.00, that is.

BUT after that cut off... if you have another child that's THEIR problem, not society's. That will encourage people to start being responsible for what they do with their genitals.

As I already mentioned, it doesn't and it won't. Most welfare systems already limit how any children are covered. Fuck, some of these women have every child they have taken away from them because they've been found to be unfit to be parents and they still pop out babies as fast as their bodies can manage because they like being pregnant and the attention that gets them.

Can you even collect welfare if you're homeless?

If you can get yourself a mailing address, yes. But it's hard as fuck, and that's something that needs to be worked on long before the whole "oh, noes, people are spending their money on drugs and too many babies" issue.

I mean nice example but you're ignoring the point...
I mean if someone's scrounging around in garbage cans for food... where would they be getting money for drugs in the first place? and if they're THAT starving why would they be buying pot when they want food?

That is my point. The law doesn't care whether the person coming in is barely eating or if they spend their spare cash on drugs: It requires that they go out, spend their own money to get tested, and then, if they pass, then they'll be reimbursed.

Don't confuse the people who milk the system for profit or for personal gain / pleasures with the people who really need help.

There's a difference in wasting welfare money on drugs, neglecting children, and reselling government food for money... with someone who's just trying to eat enough to stay alive.

I don't believe I or anyone else in this thread has ever said otherwise.

What we have said is that the law doesn't care. It states that if you are so poor that you need to go on welfare to survive, then you'd better figure out some way to scrounge up the money for the mandatory test before you can even be considered for benefits.

That (and the whole conflict of interest thing) is what is being complained about.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

but until we can find a way to toss the bathwater, sans baby, we're going to have to work with the systems we have in place and stop burning innocents in our hunt for abusers.

My ideas:

Mandatory drug testing sounds like a good way to start. Gets the druggies who don't want to change off of the freebies. They can get back on if they come clean. And sure keep the rehab open to encourage them to stay off the shit. If they go back on they lose welfare again.


And child benefits... will be ONLY for one child only, not per-child... starting in 9 months. This way parents who already have multiple kids, and women who are currently pregnant with another child won't lose any benefits. BUT after that cut off... if you have another child that's THEIR problem, not society's. That will encourage people to start being responsible for what they do with their genitals. And since you can already get damn near free birth control already... there's no excuse if you were having consensual sex.

It's easy to sit in our houses, pounding away on our computers, railing about how there are some have-nots who don't deserve to have what they're getting, but when you find yourself living out of your fucking car and scrounging cans out of dumpsters to get even a single meal a day, a drug test is the price of a week's worth of food.

Can you even collect welfare if you're homeless?


I mean nice example but you're ignoring the point...
I mean if someone's scrounging around in garbage cans for food... where would they be getting money for drugs in the first place? and if they're THAT starving why would they be buying pot when they want food?


Don't confuse the people who milk the system for profit or for personal gain / pleasures with the people who really need help.

There's a difference in wasting welfare money on drugs, neglecting children, and reselling government food for money... with someone who's just trying to eat enough to stay alive.

[Andara Bledin]

The right to be a baby-factory because welfare payments are per-child.

They've done studies and found that the baby factories want to be baby factories and any money is completely irrelevant to their continuing to do so. They actually took money away from some of them for having additional kids, and it didn't stop them from pumping them out. Turns out there are just some demographics that like being baby mommas no matter how irresponsible and selfish that is.

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."

Yes, the system isn't working properly. The problem is that we don't currently have anything better on tap without getting over the stupid-ass irrational fear of "socialist" policies that the freaks on the right like to pound into the heads of anyone that'll listen.

And if someone dares say anything against that, then the card start getting played.

I'd just as soon have all the freeloaders, drug-abusers (including fucking booze-hounds), et al off the programs and on their own, but until we can find a way to toss the bathwater, sans baby, we're going to have to work with the systems we have in place and stop burning innocents in our hunt for abusers.

Because that's what's at the heart of the objections to mandatory, self-funded drug tests to get on welfare; it's the innocent people who get hurt the most.

It's easy to sit in our houses, pounding away on our computers, railing about how there are some have-nots who don't deserve to have what they're getting, but when you find yourself living out of your fucking car and scrounging cans out of dumpsters to get even a single meal a day, a drug test is the price of a week's worth of food.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

Another suggestion would be to have all welfare come in the form of food vouchers which cannot be used to purchase anything else. It would not completely eliminate the instances of welfare being used for drugs (determined people will always find a way around that), but it would lower them.

I haven't read anything else but I do like that idea. EXCEPT that I know some people WILL resell the food for a profit.

If you don't believe me go to www.peopleoffoodstamps.com




I'm personally thinking of something I read over at PFB jsut now... one of the users pointed out that TAXPAYERS pay for all the "RIGHTS" that people on welfare are promoting.

The right to be a baby-factory because welfare payments are per-child.
the right to spend their money on drugs while everyone else chips in to give them a better quality of life?


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."



Perhaps this should be my signature... something I read from Starship Troopers:

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'.

We all talk about Entitlement Whores over at CS, people who expect the retail world to bow down and kiss their feet, to get everything on discount yadda yadda yadda... because they're "entitled" to it.


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.

And if someone dares say anything against that, then the card start getting played. The you-hate-all-poor card, or racism card, or you-hate-whatever card. Cos again... it's all about "their rights" herp derp.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, come now, Siead, that's far too rational. We can't have that.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

what if instead of testing for drugs, have a middle area. if someone on social assistance gets convicted for drug-related crime (or hell any crime), then revoke their assistance. after all, not having assistance won't make them turn to crime, since they already have.
plus it saves the state doing drug-tests because all they need is the record of conviction.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, no, the taxpayers wouldn't be losing that $180+ million; that would be thousands of kids going hungry because the money that would have gone to feed them is going into the pockets of some drug testing facility, instead.

But at least the anti-druggie people have their righteous anger to keep them warm. Which they'll probably need, because if any of them are close to the already ridiculous cut-off line for assistance, they're the ones who're going to end up paying for this ill-advised venture.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

Yes, there is. PUNISHMENT. Someone turns up positive, deny them the assistance.

OK, I understand that viewpoint.

So, in reference to the links and data I posted, you would say that it is worth it to punish those using drugs and save the state $40-60K...at the cost of $180+ million to the taxpayers?

[Fire_on_High]

Because it costs the state additional money, does not improve outcomes, and is irrelevant to the aid they are receiving. You are drug tested because it affects your job, you are not drug tested for 'moral' reasons. If the state is not liable for what the person does with their welfare, and it costs more money to drug test than not to, there is no rational reason to drug test.

Yes, there is. PUNISHMENT. Someone turns up positive, deny them the assistance.

No, I don't want to hear a sob story about their kids, or what they'll lose. If they can afford drugs, if they decide to use them if offered, whatever their reason for not following the law, if they get caught, make it hurt plenty.

If they're really that upset about what it does to the kids, maybe next time they'll think before taking a rip off a joint, or spend their cash on the kids instead of drugs. They SHOULD be grateful it's not an automatic trip to prison.