mandatory drug testing for welfare.

[daleduke17]

Welfare is the same as at-will employment. You voluntarily apply for it, get approved (hired) and then stay on it for as long as you deem needed. So, why not make the people pass a drug test? State employees have to. Welfare recipients are basically state employees as they receive money from the government. So, drug test them. Give them three strikes.

First fail: mandatory meeting with an adviser every other week for six weeks. Drug test at the end to see if there is any further usage (failing this would be second fail).

Second fail: meet with an adviser every week for six weeks, suspension of benefits (or proration of benefits) for two weeks. Drug test at the end (this would be the third fail).

Third fail: immediate suspension/revocation of benefits.

Any drug present other than drugs that one is prescribed for would count as a fail over set standards. The three strikes would be on a rolling twelve month period as well.

State saves money, taxpayers save money (in theory), and help clean areas up.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Probably should've mentioned that that's the context you'd want drug testing in, then. Rather than comparing it to drug-testing for a job, which is pretty much, "You're positive? FAIL." I still think the actual testing would not be necessary though, since meeting with a social worker often enough will likely reveal problems. . .people crafty enough to trick a social worker into thinking they have a healthy home would probably also be crafty enough to fake a drug test. And again, assigning actual PEOPLE to help with the lives of PEOPLE = not only more compassionate, but CHEAPER than paying for lab work multiple times per year.

I think the whole "MAKE THEM TAKE A DRUG TEST" thing just has this weird vibe to it, like drug users are soulless animals who do nothing but hurt everything around them, there's no helping them, yadda yadda.

[Plaidman]

And your point? Do drug testing on them. If they're doing drugs using welfare, they need to complete a program to get clean to keep getting welfare. If they refuse, and just wanna do drugs, then take kids away and put them in homes where they wont have grow up with drug addict parents.

Not all welfares are cheats. I'm well aware of that. Mom used welfare, and not a single penny of it went to her drug habits. I'm not saying she didn't sell her food stamps, but that was to get cash to buy clothes, animal food, toys for me, school supplies.

But if someone is only using welfare for drugs, which alot do, and refuse to get help for it? Why the fuck should we keep paying them to do drugs? That makes no sense at all. If your so gungho on keeping people with their drug money, go give homeless people bottles of booze, so that's all your really doing with any welfare you might give them.

[NodmiTheSellout]

With the unlawful thing, I'll be blunt: I don't know, exactly. Luckily, I don't have to. The supreme courts of the states involved do know, though, because they've found it unconstitutional. It probably has to do with the nature of welfare vs. the nature of at-will employment.

As for your anecdotes. . .that's nice. People are jerks. That doesn't prove that welfare never helps the children of addicts, ever, not even once. In fact it's ridiculous to assume that the people YOU SEE are the most common examples of people - even of drug addicts - on public assistance. Most people try to hide drug addiction. When it's that bad, they're a truly special, shitty case.

Go on and tell me why assigning case workers to welfare recipients isn't the better option. These people can do more for someone than go "BZZT, FAIL!! Have fun starving, druggie!" They can help them find assistance in getting over their addiction, help them find gainful employment, etc.. Not to mention that it's cheaper to do this than perform drug tests on everyone.

Overall no one should encourage a government policy that gives up on the most needy segments of the population. Particularly not when it actually works out better for all involved NOT to do that. People who are as hell-bent on acting like massive jerks as the ones you're talking about will find ways to do it whether it involves government welfare or not. If meetings with case workers were mandatory every few months, it'd curb that sort of thing much better than tossing them off public assistance would. Toss them off public asssistance and they're off the radar, there's no reason for them to see any sort of authority figure ever unless someone sees mistreatment and calls the cops/CPS (which people are often too afraid to do). No welfare? OK, they can sell drugs, pimp their daughters, shoplift as a profession, etc.. If they're shitty enough to poison their kids, they're shitty enough to make money in whatever way they see possible (except getting a decent job, apparently. . .because people with good jobs NEVER mistreat ANYONE, right?).

[fireheart17]

Drug testing would be a good idea for people on welfare.
And it'd be best make it so they have to be retested every couple of months (too often isn't practical, too few makes it easy to slip through the cracks).

In Australia (at least where I lived) you had to be an active job searcher (2 jobs applied to a week) to be eligible. You also had to show proof of a low income fairly often for any other sort of financial help.

Another way to to it was to get people to 'Work for the Dole'. This is where jobs that are usually ignored or avoided (trash pickup, sand dune maintenance, etc) would be done by people who are 'unable' to find a permanent job. They would have to clock in a certain number of hours a week to be eligible for their welfare check.

Less chance both of these ways for people to stay on welfare, laze about, and spend their money on drugs and booze.

EDIT: The 2nd idea is for reasonably healthy people on welfare. It would obviously be different for people with permanent serious disabilities.

They still do those down in my part of Ausland.

Basically, there are four forms of "welfare" you can use in this state at a minimum for job-seeking/study:

"Youth Allowance" (for 16-25(?) year olds who are studying, maybe on an apprenticeship or have a bunch of other circumstances that make them eligible. If they aren't studying, they need to be job-hunting DIRECTLY through Centrelink (welfare office).
"Austudy" same thing, but for 25+ year olds.

With youth allowance, the amount you're paid depends on whether or not you have a part-time/casual job (and you can still have youth allowance while you're working as long as you don't work over a certain number of hours-for some uni students, this is the ONLY way they can survive), whether or not you're married, whether or not you've left home and whether or not you have kids...a couple actually did do a marriage of "conveinience" as a protest to get the male's Youth Allowance up. (I'll find the article when I have time )

The other two are:

Abstudy: not too sure of the age bracket, but it's ONLY for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and you are required to be studying or job-seeking.
Newstart: the job-seeking one for 25 and over.

And as you're required to submit proof that you have been job-searching to Centrelink, which does not involve just a form, it also involves having to show a resume and cover letter copy as proof. We do not require managers to sign forms to state that they've been job-hunting. If the job requires an online application, they're required to give the job number as well.


EDIT: I also forgot to add, that the major supermarkets in this state run two schemes for customers who legitimately need it.

The first is a card that's marked as being "for groceries." They're usually in amounts of $10-$100. Customers can't use them to buy alcohol or tobacco products. Apparaently when the scheme first came out, it was similar to the WIC programs I hear about, but since then, they've relaxed it. Doesn't stop people from buying stuff, then returning it straight away. (as they're clearly marked, they can't be used at the liquor stores)
The second is actually government-funded. Customers are given a limit that they're required to adhere to (between $50-$400 usually) and then the paperwork is processed at the front desk.

[Plaidman]

Not really rebel. They just sell them to other people for half cash value. That's why they got rid of the paper and went to plastic.


Amanita? Do a google search. At time of rescue, the 19 year old boy weighed 40 lbs.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCente...1611693&page=1

Here's one of the stories of the trial.

[Rebel]

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.

[Amanita]

Plaid, the mom in your story needs to be beaten bloody with a horsewhip. Ten seconds to eat a peice of bread or their "mom" would put poison on it? What a fucking cunt. I would volunteer to do the lashing myself.

Likewise the father who bought beer while his kids starved. People like that give all welfare recipients a bad name. Public scourging would be too good for these.

[Plaidman]

What people here are failing to think about is--and yes, I know--THE CHILDREN. Many people who collect welfare do so because they have children. I don't think it's appropriate to punish the kids of a drug addict by taking away their budget for food, clothing, etc..

Not to mention that 1. widespread drug testing is expensive, 2. it's been found unconstitutional by the fourth amendment (unlawful search and seizure).

Further edit, on researching the matter a bit:

Much, much better idea, in my opinion. Drug addicts need help getting over their addiction, not to be thrown onto the streets and starved.

In personal experence, the children aren't getting a dime in the first place. I was buying food for these two little girls that were trying to steal ramen from me, because their fucking dad wanted beer on his EBT, and refused to ever buy them anything. Hell, he fucking tried to tear their head off when they asked for juice. "NO! THIS IS MY MONEY! THIS MY BEER MONEY BECAUSE YOU TWO WERE ACCIDENTS!"

I finally snapped at him the one time he came in alone. I never saw ether of them again.

There was a story recently on Oprah, and a few in People with these four brothers who's parents were living like royality off welfare. What did the kids get? Ten seconds to eat a piece of a bread once a day, or the mother would put poison on it. They ended up going around neighborhoods at night stealing food from garbage bins. Once they were finally rescued, years after this abuse, they were all found to be massively malnorish, greatly undersize and underweight.

Another example is my aunt when she was a foster mother. She getting money off that. Her foster daughter's friends beat the shit out of her youngest son who was, 12? at the time. What does she do? Kick her son out. Because she got welfare off the daughter. It wasn't until the daughter stole from her did she finally kick her out and let her son back.

From what I seen at my job, and from what I read? Most drug addicts aren't using welfare for their kids at all. I mean fuck, alot of those bastards make their kids steal food if they wanna eat anything, they'll teach them, and if they get caught she isn't the one that gets in trouble, her kids do. If they're not caught, more free stuff for her.

The kids get punished enough over their parents treating them like garbage while they mooch off the system. A better deal, take away welfare, and put the kids in a decent home, otherwise they just end up like their parents, which means once again, all people that work for a living, are paying for more scum and their drug addictions.

As for the unconstitutional bit? How is it unlawful to not so? I bring up once again, several people get drug tested for jobs as it is, yes even the ones that don't do drugs or even look like it. They don't do it, they get fired. It's more then a sure bit that if you do this to these scum, there will be a surplus of welfare for those that do need it, and aren't going to use it to further their all night drinking and drug binges.

[NodmiTheSellout]

What people here are failing to think about is--and yes, I know--THE CHILDREN. Many people who collect welfare do so because they have children. I don't think it's appropriate to punish the kids of a drug addict by taking away their budget for food, clothing, etc..

Not to mention that 1. widespread drug testing is expensive, 2. it's been found unconstitutional by the fourth amendment (unlawful search and seizure).

Further edit, on researching the matter a bit:

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

Much, much better idea, in my opinion. Drug addicts need help getting over their addiction, not to be thrown onto the streets and starved.

[Rapscallion]

What would be the effect of someone being cut off from their welfare for this reason?

I'm genuinely curious. I don't have an answer to the problem, but I wonder if there's a knock-on effect that hasn't been considered. The logical answer is that they'd increase illegal activities to regain their level of income. However, if they're able to afford drugs and so forth on extra welfare cheques then they're going to be able to score more welfare via other means (such as paying people to stand in for them).

If crime increases, is the cost to the community more than the cost of the welfare saved?

I don't know, but it's worth considering.

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

I like the idea, question is: what if the person has eaten something with poppy seeds? That's gonna set off the drug scanners.

Ones you can buy off a shelf at a drug store can report a false positive if you consume an abundance of them. Professional tests which the government would require in this case are far more accurate and test for other chemicals that are found instead of just opiates.

[Tanasi]

The food networks show Food Detectives ran a poppy seed experiment and bascially you had to eat a dozen or more really big poppy seed bagels to test positive.

I think anyone receiving a goverment check (not social security checks or pension checks) should have to drug test. Fail money is cut off until you test negative and tested monthly for a year. Second positive you're cut off for a year or maybe permanently.

[Kimmik]

Ehh... Well, lets do another example. Say you are horribly maimed. Lose arms, legs, eye sight.

If you go by your pattren, they're fucked after five years, because disability is welfare.

It would matter of what welfare is for. If its "i'm too lazy to look for a job" then yeah, five years is plenty of time.

Disability is not welfare.. it is money that you put in the system most times

[daleduke17]

Ehh... Well, lets do another example. Say you are horribly maimed. Lose arms, legs, eye sight.

If you go by your pattren, they're fucked after five years, because disability is welfare.

It would matter of what welfare is for. If its "i'm too lazy to look for a job" then yeah, five years is plenty of time.

Yes, the "too lazy to work" group. Too me, SSI/Disability is different than the known style of "welfare".