mandatory drug testing for welfare.

[Sleepwalker]

I’ve got to do it myself for my own job, why shouldn’t welfare recipients?

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.

You have a problem some months with buying shit you don't need, which makes it hard to pay rent. Therefore, whenever you buy something you don't need, take an additional twenty out of your wallet, set it on fire and piss on the ashes. Problem solved!

[Andara Bledin]

A lot of money going into his his wife's pockets for almost no gain to the state.

And a huge loss of both money and time when it has to defend a law that will more than likely be stricken once properly challenged.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

Well, that drug testing for welfare recipients has just worked out SO well.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

If the ACLU or anyone else were to challenge the law, the lawsuit would likely succeed. As UCLA law professor Adam Winkler wrote after Scott signed the law, “Random drug-testing is what is known as a ‘suspicion-less search,’” and outside of a few limited instances, courts have “generally frowned upon” drug testing that occurs at random and without probable cause. “Indeed, courts have stuck down policies just like the ones put in place by Florida,” Winkler wrote, citing two cases to back up the claim. Case One. Case Two.

[jackfaire]

My parents worked their assess off on welfare and never turned to drugs or alcohol to relax my dad even quit smoking while on welfare.

Unfortunatly a lot of people slip through the cracks for a lot of things they shouldn't. A reward system for reporting people would be good the reward contingent on the tip being a good one for example you see someone walk out of the welfare office that you know just got assistance climb into a brand new lexus. Should be a tip line to call.

[Dasota]

I'd like to know where the line is drawn with the Drug testing.

My mom was a herion addict for YEARS, and used many other drugs with it, like pot for example.

To me, these are 2 extremes on the scale.

Do I think someone who smokes pot should get kicked off of welfare because they tested positive? Hell no. It's fucking stressful being on welfare and having to raise a kid as well as your wife who is a drug addict in really bad way.

^My dad, who did everything he could to make sure I had food on the table, clothes on my back, a roof over my head, and a few toys. I don't begrudge him at all for taking 20 bucks here or there and waiting till I went to bed to get high and try to relax.

My mom too actually always made sure I had what I needed, but she also would pawn off a lot of crap of hers, or my dad's for that matter to support her habit.

Of the two? Yes, I think my dad should have been able to get welfare when it was needed, my mom? Fuck no.

[jedimaster91]

I'm sure the kind of people complaining about the habits of those on welfare are the same people who would poop their pampers at the notion of a tax increase to pay for this.

If the government itself were more fiscally responsible, it may not have to raise taxes. But that's a different arguement altogether.

[NodmiTheSellout]

OK, but, consider this. . .if you're to be at all fair with it (assuming that the court decision of such testing being unconstitutional is wrong, for this argument), you'd have to test everyone. A good 80-90% of these people WILL NOT test positive. But you still have to pay for the test itself, the people to administer it, the people to be sure of its confidentiality, etc. etc.. This adds up to a buttload of money. Yet, asking people to fill out a simple questionnaire is effective enough to compete with chemical testing, and CHEAPER. It competes because it catches alcoholism as well, which is probably a much larger problem among the poor than the abuse of illegal substances.

The main reason that drug testing is not done in this way, so far as I can tell, is money. And as concerns for money are what brings up this desire in the first place, what is more fiscally responsible should be considered the best option. I don't know what the fixation is on a chemical test. Chemical tests that are difficult to cheat are expensive, and I'm sure the kind of people complaining about the habits of those on welfare are the same people who would poop their pampers at the notion of a tax increase to pay for this.

[Fryk]

I don't think the number of druggies is as important here a in other places. At least not to me. All I wantto see is drug users identified for the purpose of offering them help. That's all.

And I am sure that the statistics would show that a minority of employed persons in the US are drug users. But that doesn't stop them from being drug tested.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Because, apparently, testing for drugs violates the law and can be discriminatory.

Even though I can be drug tested to get a job. Fucking druggies can't be drug tested to get welfare.

Not all welfare recipients are "fucking druggies".

Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines[3] – rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.[4]

In fact, I wish I'd found the linked article sooner, as it confirms my arguments about how it would be more fiscally responsible to put the money that would be used for drug testing into bettering the plans for welfare recipients. It goes into how questionnaires are often more effective than drug tests, and brings up a good point that I didn't consider--drug tests don't detect alcohol abuse, which is JUST AS BAD as abusing illegal substances.

[daleduke17]

Which is actually why some are on welfare. I have known functional people are on drugs that prefer it because of the fact they can keep their drugs on welfare but not on jobs.

So it needs to be changed to where welfare recipients are drug tested to be able to keep their benefits.

The questions that don't get answered are: what is different between a job drug testing employees and the state drug testing welfare recipients? How is one unconstitutional where the other isn't?

[jackfaire]

Because, apparently, testing for drugs violates the law and can be discriminatory.

Even though I can be drug tested to get a job. Fucking druggies can't be drug tested to get welfare.

Which is actually why some are on welfare. I have known functional people are on drugs that prefer it because of the fact they can keep their drugs on welfare but not on jobs.

[daleduke17]

Even if you don't agree with the "kick 'em off welfare" part of this, I don't see why anyone would disagree with testing for drugs. Surely another way to identify people with drug problems so they can get help isn't a bad thing.

Because, apparently, testing for drugs violates the law and can be discriminatory.

Even though I can be drug tested to get a job. Fucking druggies can't be drug tested to get welfare.

[Fryk]

Even if you don't agree with the "kick 'em off welfare" part of this, I don't see why anyone would disagree with testing for drugs. Surely another way to identify people with drug problems so they can get help isn't a bad thing.

[jedimaster91]

One of the many problems with the welfare system is that it is far too large and unwieldy for one institution to handle. I'm all for drug testing for those who want welfare benefits, but that alone will not solve the problem. I think the system would work better if the federal government allocated money to the states and state agencies handled the claims. If that gets to be too much, the states can further delegate to individual counties, cities, or towns. It's a lot harder to fool a close-knit community than an impersonal government agency.

[LexiaFira]

Having lived in texas and living where I am now, LA (the state not the town) I have seen both sides of welfare. Not been on it. I have seen the abuse and I have seen those that truly need it get it but have also seen both sides denied as well. Some for valid reasons some for not. (IE denied because person is already wealthy by their standards or by some slim chance they just did not make it which is BS I don't know all the details)

I am all for drug testing but not piss in a cup, I mean take a hair or swab the mouth that isn't going to cost more in the long run as some pee tests can be messed with. Whatever you have taken comes out in your hair, the entire strand. Whatever you ate in the last 24 hours will be in your mouth.

I do suggest a cut off date for those that want a free ride and for those that honestly do want a job and ARE LOOKING but cannot find one. I would say if it was going to be done on the five year thing re-evaluate every year and if there is proof that said person isn't putting in effort start taking a little bit away but...eeh. That would mean having to go to their house and do investigations and in texas that would mean having to leave the precious desk for some of the government workers. Not saying all are bad but those that I DID encounter loved their desk job waaaay too much.

Disability should be separate but thats another rant

please, correct or point out where I am wrong I at least try to get facts straight