Scott Walker Calls Food Stamp Drug Testing 'A Progressive Thing'

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

I cant comment as to the state of the American welfare system other than the information i read but here in the U.K you actually receive additional benefits should you have a substance or alcohol addiction. And having said addiction also makes it possible to receive more points towards council/housing association property's.

Im not suggesting our system is somehow better, just wondering how said social care systems could be so different from one another given our respective nations similarity's?

a reply to: andy06shake

Well just ask the people whom I have been arguing with. They seem to think it's better socially and financially to just let drug users keep doing whatever they please without any sort of repercussions. But that logic they are pretty much saying go ahead and have illegal substance abuse issues because hey we will take care of you so you can continue to use drugs on our dime.

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

Thing is freedom of choice being what it is you cannot really stop people from using drug's. You do realise our whole society pretty much promotes the use of drugs everyday of the legal or illegal variety. What about Alcohol and Tobacco products or over the counter anti depressant and there like. Should the same rule of thumb apply to the poor souls if those show up in there system?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

Thing is freedom of choice being what it is you cannot really stop people from using drug's. You do realise our whole society pretty much promotes the use of drugs everyday of the legal or illegal variety. What about Alcohol and Tobacco products or over the counter anti depressant and there like. Should the same rule of thumb apply to the poor souls if those show up in there system?

Absolutely correct you can not stop them from using drugs. You should be able to deny them financial assistance however. And no because those things are legal. Not saying alcohol or prescription drugs are any better at all. I'm just saying we have decided as a country to allow those things to be legal or not. To a certain extent obviously.

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

When a nation starts to drug test its own people with the aim of denying food, shelter and warfare to those they deem unacceptable and/or addicted something is very, very wrong indeed.

These type of schemes are no better than the eugenics program's operated in the U.S, Germany and to some extent the UK, Sweden and France prior to World War 2. Simply because vulnerable members of our community will die due to inappropriate actions perpetrated by the very people sworn to protect them aka our beloved governments

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
a reply to: Aazadan

I'm very positive most people get more than that. I know several people who get much more than that per month for food stamps and if you want to get real technical you not equating the cost of what it actually cost to run those types of programs. Even though the people may end up with 150 (which is laughable at best) the real cost to get them that money is much much more. But ok

Try the calculator for yourself
www.ndhealth.gov...

I'll even give you some sample numbers, try an income of $750/month (what a disabled person gets), 450/month rent, and 100 in utility bills. You'll get a benefit allotment of $84 for the month.

If you don't want to use that
www.fns.usda.gov...
www.fns.usda.gov...

You can read through the eligibility there. I'm pretty sure you're uninformed as to how much those several people you know get.

originally posted by: Zerodoublehero
And to be perfectly clear we are talking the article we are specifically talking about pertains to welfare not just food stamps. Which yes dose include housing and heathcare.

From the article quoted in the OP

Walker wants to drug test food stamp recipients so badly that he is currently suing the federal government for permission to do so. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, has long maintained that federal law doesn't allow states to add drug tests as a condition of eligibility for SNAP. Walker wants a court to say the feds are wrong.

So yes, we're discussing food stamps.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

I cant comment as to the state of the American welfare system other than the information i read but here in the U.K you actually receive additional benefits should you have a substance or alcohol addiction. And having said addiction also makes it possible to receive more points towards council/housing association property's.

Im not suggesting our system is somehow better, just wondering how said social care systems could be so different from one another given our respective nations similarity's?

Because in the UK you have an actual support system. The US has a very small support system and half the country thinks it's too large as it is. For a lot of Americans there's an independent streak that makes them feel that providing a safety net takes away the value of work. This is a country after all that in the past has refused food subsidies following natural disasters believing people should rely on their neighbors, and that doesn't think adults are entitled to anything. Most of our welfare system is designed for the benefit of children, but if you don't have children you don't get anything. It's a very different mentality from the UK.

Our government's inability to distinguish between different types of drugs, inability to understand that certain drugs fall completely outside of this negative paradigm of addiction, makes any talk of drug testing, particularly in terms of something like receiving food stamps, absurd. And what rationale is there exactly for alcohol and tobacco NOT being included? Not that I think any of it should. Until the government stops acting like children with their fingers in their ears, unwilling to acknowledge facts, then every expidenture such as this is more than illegitimate.

What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Take note of this link, I'll be coming back to it several times.

Well that link which was the one we both have been referring to clearly states welfare not food stamps. So that would seem to make your numbers drastically off as I have been saying this whole time. Why don't you just actually look up what the dollar amount someone on welfare equates to per day.

www.budget.senate.gov...

But hey
www.studentsagainsthunger.org...

You would rather see drug users getting the funding than people actually in need. Like veterans too right? Why die or get injuries fighting for our country. If you stay home and get high we will protect you

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

When a nation starts to drug test its own people with the aim of denying food, shelter and warfare to those they deem unacceptable and/or addicted something is very, very wrong indeed.

These type of schemes are no better than the eugenics program's operated in the U.S, Germany and to some extent the UK, Sweden and France prior to World War 2. Simply because vulnerable members of our community will die due to inappropriate actions perpetrated by the very people sworn to protect them aka our beloved governments

Well said. I agree completely.

Unfortunately, a lot of people in the US have what I call a militant, punishment culture. They seem to have a fetish for punishing people on a large scale and for the most insignificant infractions. Reconciliation, giving 2nd chances, rehabilitation, and compromising are seen as flaws and are discouraged. Kindness is seen as a weakness while extreme discipline & ruling w/an iron fist are seen as strengths.

It doesn't help that a lot of these people have short tempers and make blind, knee jerk decisions too. Instead of wishing for love, peace, and harmony within society, they impatiently wait by the traps they've set so they can punish anyone who makes a mistake. There are even tv shows here like "Bait Car" where undercover police literally "abandon" new cars in poverty stricken neighborhoods, then wait for someone to try to steal it. People get amusement from watching this (and apparently, those police feel fulfilled for doing it).

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

That's because there has been very little drug testing of people on food stamps, so instead they're using TANF numbers. And no, the money saved doesn't go to the needy because the drug testing comes out of the TANF or SNAP budget. So everyone winds up with less because the poor law abiding citizens are paying for drug tests for people that don't need the tests in the first place.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Have you seen this thread I authored a while back? It deals with some of the stuff you are talking about.

Which do you prefer, to punish the guilty or to reduce the rate of immorality?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm not putting thoughts in anyone's heads.

All I'm saying is that to properly counter argue those graphs requires some evidence to do so. Otherwise those graphs that are put up by Krazyshot must be correct.

I'm gonna have to agree with CharlieSpeirs. What he meant by "manipulative" is that the graphics are skewed, the axis aren't labeled, the sample size isn't clearly stated, the title "cost of testing" is not descriptive, and they are just overall shoddy. I'm taking a course in statistics right now and we've actually discussed this very topic- people will draw conclusions based on the shiny graphics rather than the numbers themselves.

No offense, but blindly believing those graphics because they fit your political views is very "sheepish". The media pulls this kind of crap all the time, from every angle, and it's amazing how now that I know about it I see it everywhere.

a reply to: Talorc

Thank you that is exactly what I have been saying.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

That's because there has been very little drug testing of people on food stamps, so instead they're using TANF numbers. And no, the money saved doesn't go to the needy because the drug testing comes out of the TANF or SNAP budget. So everyone winds up with less because the poor law abiding citizens are paying for drug tests for people that don't need the tests in the first place.

You were just arguing with me that it was food stamps but now it is welfare? So here's a better way to out it sense you like using math figures. You said average of 700$ per test? Let's use your own link again for reference.

The program went into effect in July 2014 and, between that time and the end of the year, 16,017 applied for Families First, Tennessee’s TANF program. Of those, 279 were given drug tests and 37 failed then. Those tests cost the state $5,295.



So by that math it cost 19 dollars a person. We have already established that a person on welfare cost severely more than 150 a month when you add in housing, food stamps, and heath benifits. So even at 150 a person. For 12 months (which again is just crazy low) that would be 1800 a year less per person for the cost of 19 dollars. That's just food stamps. More than likely those same individuals are on other assistance programs like I stated which brings the cost up expediently. When that same 19 dollars Covers all of those benifits and not just food stamps

edit on 17-9-2015 by Zerodoublehero because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Zerodoublehero

I didn't argue that it's welfare, I've specifically kept the discussion to food stamps. TANF is simply where the drug testing numbers were pulled from in the article because few states have actually done the tests. Florida and Kansas are two that have and it ended up costing the state a lot of money.

On top of that, if we're going by what Walker said he wants to find these people and throw them into rehab. Rehab costs money, then once they're clean they'll be eligible for welfare programs presumably so you're not even denying them any money in the end.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

I didn't argue that it's welfare, I've specifically kept the discussion to food stamps. TANF is simply where the drug testing numbers were pulled from in the article because few states have actually done the tests. Florida and Kansas are two that have and it ended up costing the state a lot of money.

On top of that, if we're going by what Walker said he wants to find these people and throw them into rehab. Rehab costs money, then once they're clean they'll be eligible for welfare programs presumably so you're not even denying them any money in the end.

If you go back I never said anything regarding to walkers comments. I have been arguing the fact the the numbers presented in the beginning were misleading and wrong to an extent where it was made to look alot more costly than it really is. And there are several states that is seemed to have cost practically nothing. The statistics provided are insufficient for both sides of the argument. We are really just arguing over personal opinion at this point.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

While I agree that drug testing doesn't "help" those on Food Stamps, I'm all for the idea.
For the simple fact that if you have money to blow on drugs, then you don't need my help buying food!