States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

OK listern to this:

In the brough of London where i live if you claim welfare and rent,and lets say youre rent is £200 per week you will get a rent allowance of £250 per week.

You can do what you want with the extra £50 and that is on top of any other benifits you might be getting and claiming.

Its madness why give a person an extra £50 per week for nothing if there rent is only £200?

reply to post by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H


All the more reason that systems on both sides of the pond need to be changed.

Steps need to be taken to prevent abuses, and some legislators here think that drug testing is the first step.

reply to post by skeptic1


How stupid and ridiculous.

Do you even know what the word welfare means? These people cant even afford to buy food and pay their utility bills, how can they afford drugs?

reply to post by Gouki


Then explain to me how so many of them do just that.

If people don't believe that, they live under a rock and ignore reality.

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Gouki

 

Then explain to me how so many of them do just that.

If people don't believe that, they live under a rock and ignore reality.

The reality is that this is a blatant attack by the rich and powerful on the poor people of this country.

You'd never hear congress suggesting they should drug test themselves because they 'don't want taxpayer money going to waste.' How about drug testing the employees of bailed out banks?

The people who cannot see this measure for what it really is, a cruel assault on the civil liberties and pocketbooks of the most vulnerable, need things to be put in perspective for them.

reply to post by Gouki


are you for real? Have you never been out of the burbs? There is a whole culture there that lives off of drugs, the sale and use, and abuse of drugs. For a bunch of people in the inner city ghetto, it is simply a way of life. Ask someone who grew up there, or is there now. Don't take my word for it, but please educate yourself.

I am all for making congress, an any government entity piss in a cup as well. If your money comes from the taxpayer, you should have to live by the rules of society.

Originally posted by Gouki
reply to post by skeptic1

 

How stupid and ridiculous.

Do you even know what the word welfare means? These people cant even afford to buy food and pay their utility bills, how can they afford drugs?

Are you serious man take your head out of your rear end and look around...................

reply to post by skeptic1


I have only three words for this and it sounds a lot like A-F*$&@(g-MEN.

I agree with its voluntary to get the assitance, and we should have assurances that the recipients are using the money for its intended purposes.

Originally posted by Gouki
reply to post by skeptic1

 

How stupid and ridiculous.

Do you even know what the word welfare means? These people cant even afford to buy food and pay their utility bills, how can they afford drugs?

We are talking about drug additcs here my friend, these are the type of people that put drugs before everything.

Food comes a very poor secound to a junkie, why do you think there all so gaunt looking?

Give a junkie $20 and what do you think he is going to buy, a bag of drugs or a bag of groceries?

Originally posted by Gouki
reply to post by skeptic1

 

How stupid and ridiculous.

Do you even know what the word welfare means? These people cant even afford to buy food and pay their utility bills, how can they afford drugs?

Listen, I live in their world, they do buy drugs we have explained how,

Plus they dress a lot better then I do.

Have cell phones, and drive better cars.

Not to say there are many truly needy, but there are plenty cheats.

There isn't a strong rational argument for spending money to administer substance abuse testing to welfare recipients. This has been investigated -- strongly in 1996, in fact, and the findings essentially conclude thusly:

Drs. Grant and Dawson found the 1992 prevalence of alcohol abuse and/or dependence among welfare recipients (which ranged from 4.3 to 8.2 percent across the five welfare programs) and drug abuse and/or dependence (which ranged from 1.3 to 3.6 across the programs) comparable to general population rates for alcohol abuse and/or dependence (7.4 percent) and other drug abuse and/or dependence (1.5 percent). Similarly, the proportion of welfare recipients who are heavy drinkers (6.4 to 13.8 percent across programs) was comparable to 14.5 percent in the general population, and the proportion of welfare recipients who use other drugs (3.8 to 9.8 across programs) was comparable to 5.0 in the general population. The welfare rates also were similar to non-welfare rates of alcohol abuse and/or dependence (7.5 percent), drug abuse and/or dependence (1.5 percent), heavy drinking (14.8 percent), and any drug use (5.1 percent).

(1)

Essentially, the incidence of substance abuse is no higher amongst welfare recipients than it is in the general population. The cost to exclude the 5-10% of the recipients who you feel don't deserve it would in all likelihood exceed the savings, though I haven't seen any numbers on the cost of the proposed program so I can't prove it. It's a strange argument to advance (from my perspective) that of those substance abusers who receive welfare a majority of them have substance abuse to blame for their need of welfare. It it dramatically more likely that their substance abuse is the consequence of root socioeconomic conditions from which poverty also extends. The assumption that they have a causal relationship is a logical fallacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc. In English, with this, therefore because of this. Commonly spoken as "correlation does not imply causation." Of course the irony here is that statistically, there is no meaningful correlation of substance abuse with welfare recipients.

Philosophically, I think it's interesting that so many people are willing to persecute (i.e. guilty until proven innocent) people receiving help from society in order to weed out a small proportion of people who are participating in behaviors "society does not approve of". Even the premise that "society disapproves of substance use/abuse" seems a dubious one tome. There are plenty of people who would argue that many of our substance control laws are themselves unjust and not terribly valuable to society as a whole. I'm not sure one can infer from the fact that the federal government has outlawed several substances the conclusion that society agrees with those laws, or even that they are worthwhile. Supposing for a moment that they are not good laws, why would we want yet more of them? Wouldn't it make more sense to introduce programs to treat substance abuse problems targeted at welfare recipients? I'll bet it would be less expensive, too.

Originally posted by skeptic1


I like this idea.

Many jobs in this country require random drug testing, so why not welfare and state assistance recipients?

And how much will it cost? And what cost to what little personal sovereignty we have left? Throw it all away and further advance the failed war on drugs. That is what you are for? Please tell me when you run for public office so I can be the one to "boo!" you from the crowd.



[edit on 27-3-2009 by pluckynoonez]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

You know, if everyone got off welfare, there wouldn't be enough jobs to go around.

Bingo. And it is designed that way to keep the cost of labor artificially low.

en.wikipedia.org...

The term NAIRU is an acronym for Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment.[1] It is a concept in economic theory significant in the interplay of macroeconomics and microeconomics. This "full employment" unemployment rate is sometimes termed the "inflation-threshold unemployment rate": Actual unemployment cannot fall below the NAIRU, and the inflation rate is likely to rise quickly (accelerate) in times of strong labor demands during periods of growth.[2] It is sometimes referred to as the "natural rate of unemployment" as well, although this term describes an estimated unemployment rate derived from the market's actual performance while the NAIRU is calculated from the Philips Curve.[3] The point at which the Philips curve, which relates unemployment to inflation, intersects the horizontal axis indicates the NAIRU.[4] In terms of output, the NAIRU corresponds to potential output, the highest level of real gross domestic product that can be sustained at any one time. This is also called the "natural gross domestic product."

I know not all of you WANT to become economists. I understand that completely. I personally do not want to become a lot of things other people might find appealing.

You guys are condemning people for being unemployed and trying to punish both the unemployed and all of us by undermining our rights to privacy further, for something that is designed into the system. Something that will not go away. Because it is unnaturally created in the market. And maintained there purposely.

So what if some of the unemployed are drug addicts? Do you really want them working with you? Or are they better off at home and out of the way? The odds are, these people would be using drugs whether they were on welfare or working. There have been addicts as long as humans have known there were things that could alter our consciousness. Long, long, before welfare. There is no cause and effect there.

What is true is that addicts are the easiest people to marginalize, and the least desirable workers. Hence, most likely to end up poor. And now days, on welfare.

The system is not designed for 100% employment. It isnt. The government and economists and industry dont want it. What they do want is a bunch of people who do not understand their plans to bicker and fight and end up BEGGING the government to take their freedoms. Much like you guys are. Because that makes artificial control and profiteering easier.

Over what? 1 penny of every tax dollar you spend. Its ludicrous. We dont need a PTB to plot against us. We do that very well all on our own. We beg the government to enslave us because we are petty and mean spirited towards one another and then we act so hurt and surprised when we find out we arent free.

What a crock.

It will create jobs! And you'll need to make the tests so that makes jobs. And then people to do them, and handle the samples, thousands of jobs will be created! Which means less people on welfare.

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
And how much will it cost?

Obviously it is lucrative enough for the private sector to do it, why not for those that are receiving public funds?

And what cost to what little personal sovereignty we have left?

Sounds like fear mongering to me. What's wrong in making sure that the money that is pigeonholed for the raising of these children make it to where it should go? Or is OK for a cracked out parent to waste funds that are for the kids? Not addiction.

reply to post by aLiiEn

Unfortunately random drug testing is not the right thing to do. If you think this is the right thing, then you should submit to it to.

No problem. It seems you believe welfare is a right. One can look at the constitution and find no indication of such a right. That is the basic fallacy of your entire line of thinking.

Another thing I would like to understand with you is this.
Why is it, because you are forced to pay an illegal tax on your income.
That you find people who don't earn an income to pay the tax on.
To be inferior to yourself?
And subject to additional "Measures".

I don't believe people who don't get money stolen from them by an intrusive government are inferior to myself, so this question is irrelevant.

As for being subject to additional "Measures", I am subject to many more additional "Measures" to get my money including working for it, drug tests, being on time to work, and getting a portion of my money taken to pay for a vast bureaucracy to subjugate people into 'welfare' programs.

Peoples medical problems, are private.

As is my money and all fruits of my labor but it is still taken from me for the "public good".

How is requiring drug tests for something that is not a Right wrong? People who work for the DMV take drug tests. Are we discriminating against people who work for the DMV?

more later.... I am only on page 3

Originally posted by intrepid

Sounds like fear mongering to me. What's wrong in making sure that the money that is pigeonholed for the raising of these children make it to where it should go? Or is OK for a cracked out parent to waste funds that are for the kids? Not addiction.

Explain to me how drug testing will make more money trickle down to the children of people on welfare.

Show me how it will work. Because as I see, it, all you will do is either send the addict to another drug not tested for, such as alcohol, and the money will still be diverted from the children, or end up throwing the kids off the rolls all together, or forcing them into foster care.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I gave you a star even though I don't agree with everything you have posted,

BRB

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by intrepid

Sounds like fear mongering to me. What's wrong in making sure that the money that is pigeonholed for the raising of these children make it to where it should go? Or is OK for a cracked out parent to waste funds that are for the kids? Not addiction.

Explain to me how drug testing will make more money trickle down to the children of people on welfare.

Show me how it will work. Because as I see, it, all you will do is either send the addict to another drug not tested for, such as alcohol, and the money will still be diverted from the children, or end up throwing the kids off the rolls all together, or forcing them into foster care.

The worlds a mess, yes, it is not the kids fault, but many will be the next generation of dependent drug abusers.

Frick, I know more then one mother that smokes pot with their teens.

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't mind my tax dollar going to the needy, heck I am needy, It just galls me when I see it being spent on crack, how is this fair?

You guys are condemning people for being unemployed and trying to punish both the unemployed and all of us by undermining our rights to privacy further, for something that is designed into the system. Something that will not go away. Because it is unnaturally created in the market. And maintained there purposely.

Wrong, I am angry with people who refuse to work, and use the system to get high,

What about SSI?

Do you know how many young alcoholics and substance abusers get SSI?

Frick,

I could go on forever.