It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:07 PM

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

Plenty easy. If you are on welfare that means you are most likely living below poverty standards. If there's money going out on things other than the necessities that speaks VOLUMES. The parent(s) need to have the welfare revoked and take the children into proper care. One where the welfare of the children come before addiction. This might actually cost MORE but the alternative is much more scary. Generation after generation of welfare and addiction.

That said there are fine people that need welfare but we are talking about addiction here. We're dealing with reality.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

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

Do you think there is any correlation between hopelessness and drug use? Do you think that people who cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel are more or less likely to become drug addicts?

The results provide robust evidence that the prevalence of binge drinking is strongly countercyclical. Furthermore, even among those who remain employed, binge drinking increased substantially during economic downturns. This combination of results suggests that recession-induced increases in the prevalence of binge drinking do not simply reflect an increased availability of leisure and may instead reflect the influence of economic stress.

So how is applying more economic and other stress to people going to have any impact on drug use? At all?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Frick, I know more then one mother that smokes pot with their teens.

I have known people like that too. Even employed people. Its bad parenting. But there are three problems being discussed here.

Bad parenting. Addiction. And unemployment. And they are not all caused by the same thing.

Bad parenting can happen on any economic level. Look at Paris Hilton.

Addiction can happen on any economic level. Look everywhere.

Unemployment is not something that will ever go away as long as the government actively promotes a certain level of it.

The fact that there are a lot of people who happen to be bad parents, and addicted also on welfare is due to the fact that addicts, and people who have a very poor sense of what is responsible behavior are also unlikely to be your best workers. No one wants to hire them because they suck. Or if they do manage to get hired, their own nature, (being irresponsible with poor judgment and addiction issues) makes them likely to get fired.

Obviously not everyone on welfare is this sort of person. Many people move off the roles into jobs. But your chronic welfare recipients are likely to be those most undesirable as workers. They arent going anywhere. No one wants them.

Dont think of them living the highlife off your 1 penny per tax dollar. Think of that 1 penny per tax dollar as the price you pay to keep them from being forced to steal your crap to survive because not only are they unemployable, but now they are starving too.

Sure, some of their children will end up on welfare too. Thats because genetics and environment both contribute to behavior. But some of those kids will make it out of the system. I did. I know others who have. There are quite a few rags to riches stories. And even more rags to moderate income stories.

If you want to punish people, just say so. Just go out and kick a dumb person. Or beat a bum on the street. Or smack someone around who is mentally ill. Dont pretend there is some moral high ground or logic behind what you are doing. There isnt. Someone who is an addict is what they are. I dont approve either, but you know what? It really sucks to be them. Just be glad you arent that messed up. And be glad you arent their child, and you dont have to deal with it day to day, plus try to pull yourself out of that hell.

Dont pretend that all of us giving up more of our Constitutional rights by creating more case law that supports invasions of our right to privacy is in our best interests. It isnt. Its in our best interests to either tell economists to stop forcing down the price of labor by maintaining 3-5% unemployment or by paying the stupid penny a tax dollar to keep that 3-5% of unemployed people from more criminal activity than their already ridiculously low welfare payments encourage them to participate in.

Because they arent going to all find jobs. Thats not reality. It isnt what the governments wants. Or industry.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
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?

Its fair because you dont have to be them. You dont have to live that level of misery. And no matter how happy they look while doing crack or whatever, they are doing that to forget how very miserable they really are. You dont need to punish them. It really sucks to be them.

You may not be rich but you are intelligent, and you have some luxuries, ( a computer) and you arent an addict. (presumably) The dont have anything you want. Honest.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
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.

Wow really?
So also you would note, that there is no indication in the constitution, requiring people to pay income tax either?

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.

You, and many other people, certainly act like you find someone on welfare, inferior.
You call them "Them" "Those people".You act very judgmental towards them yet say you don't find them inferior.
But then again you are probably someone, who says one thing, and does another.
Because you are subject to something, doesn't mean everyone else should be.
You are drug tested due to "RISK", your employment can not tolerate the risk of you using drugs.
Therefore they have to rule out any possibility of you being on duty, and using drugs.
What risk does someone simply being on welfare pose of being on drugs?
How about the plain and simple argument, that being on welfare, is not a job?
Therefore no testing is needed?
Where is the risk, to someone on welfare, of using drugs?
Also, simply using drugs, does not mean abusing them.
Someone prescribed Valium, is using it.
Others who take more than the recommended dose, are abusing it.
How is it any different than alcohol?
Someone in the DMV, a driving instructor, could come to work with still a high blood alcohol concentration.
And be just as much risk as someone who has smoked marijuana.

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?

Why would people who work in the DMV, behind a desk, get drug tested?
There is no risk, to require them to need it.
Data entry mistakes?I don't think so.
Of course someone in a position of driving, has the risk, therefore they are tested.
What im saying is, there is no "NEED" to drug test a broad spectrum of the population.
Simply on a whim to say if they are on drugs, then they shouldn't get welfare?
What the heck does that have to do with anything?

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.
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.
$400 times 31.7 million.
You want to spend, $12680000000, on drug testing people?
Many of which don't even have a suspicion of being on drugs?
Just in case?
12.6 BILLION DOLLARS?hahahaha
That's for one round of tests.
Before the year is out, you will have spent 100 billion dollars.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by aLiiEn]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by intrepid

Plenty easy. If you are on welfare that means you are most likely living below poverty standards. If there's money going out on things other than the necessities that speaks VOLUMES.

No. Your plenty easy solution does not reflect reality. Many on welfare for long periods of time are not addicted to illegal drugs. Many of them are people who have very little ability to control their own impulses, including the impulse to use drugs.

Some use legal drugs. Some just binge spend. Cutting off the ones who are addicted to illegal drugs does nothing to help the other two categories. There is a reason these people are unemployable or unable to keep the jobs they manage to get.

My own mother did not use drugs, or alcohol, or smoke. After she divorced my employed alcoholic father we ended up on welfare. She was (and is) manic depressive. We were always hungry because in her manic phases, she would blow every penny on foolish things. And then we would starve, or have no electricity or water. If she got a job, (she was very intelligent) she would end up getting fired because of her mood swings, or (if she was in a depressive phase) because she was too busy crying in bed to go to work.

You guys just want to punish people. And you have no idea who you are really punishing. You make me ashamed of people in general. All you are going to accomplish is making the children of these people who already have huge strikes against them more likely to fail. And humiliating them further. Do you think being a child of a parent on welfare is fun? Being hungry, not having power, or water, old second hand clothes, being teased by mean spirited people who look down on you? (much like the nasty mentality held by many here) All you guys are doing is ensuring that some little kid with an addict for a mother or father ends up on the streets or in foster care where the odds are they will be every bit as mistreated as they are in their homes.

Maybe making them miss school, because they are living in a car somewhere and now there is no oversight to ensure they go. You guys just make me sick. Really. And you may not care about the Constitution. You arent American, so I dont expect you to. But for Americans who think this is a great idea I am appalled.

I am done here. I am just as glad I am not you people who want to punish the poor and the addicted as I am glad I am not poor and addicted. It cant feel good to be you either, wanting to make people pay for being the miserable wrecks that they are, and being willing to make their children collateral damage so you can vent your bile.

I pity you.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by intrepid
The parent(s) need to have the welfare revoked and take the children into proper care. One where the welfare of the children come before addiction.

BTW, having spent much of my life in this "proper care" you so blithely speak of, the same head in the sand, (or clouds) attitude of the masses that make this sort of a policy look good is the same head in the sand (or clouds) attitude that makes you think foster care is a good system.

Let me tell you the truth about "proper care" in America.

As a foster child, you are well and truly reduced to a dollar value. Most foster parents fall into one of two categories.

One the religious, who feel taking on savages and whipping them into proper citizens is their God given duty. And they often humiliate you, and mock you, and beat you to whip the fear of God into you. They dont care about you. They want to look good in the eyes of others for taking on such a difficult task. They take you on for the same reason they go to church. To make others believe they are holy. They thrive on the praise they get. And they let you know ever single day that you dont deserve their "compassion." Only their loyalty to God makes them deign to tolerate you, in hopes you too can one day become human.

The other is the realist. You are a check. A resource. You want to talk about welfare parents, these people tend to take on several children so they can fund their laziness. It pays fairly well. Plus, you have children to do your labor. These parents dress you in rags, often feed you separately from their own children if they have them, and work you like a slave. Many times you can even be lucky enough to find one that will molest you as well. They also like to hit you (but never leave bruises) and you get the joy also of being told how lucky you are they are doing all this for (and to) you.

And the social workers just assume you are a habitual liar if you tell. But you quickly learn there is not point in telling. You either end up in a home just as bad or worse, or, if the social worker is sick of you, in detention home for a while to let you become more grateful for your next home.

Rare is the family like the last home I was in, that cared about you for you. And who is willing to help undo all the damage that "proper care" has done for you. My last foster mother knew what it was like, she too had been in care when her mother died. But homes like that are one in a million. I was so damned lucky to be there.

You keep telling yourselves that it is so much better to take these kids out of their crappy homes with their addicted parents who may actually love them, regardless of the fact that they are addicted wrecks and support them badly. You just feel smug and secure in your knowledge that you really do know whats best for people, and dont ever bother finding out that you dont know a damn thing about what you are talking about, what you are asking for.

Proper care. What a freakin laugh. Talk to some foster children why dont you. I know plenty having grown up that way, and my experience isnt even close to being the worst.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

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?

If that's the way you truely feel, then support something that focuses on this group of people.

Why should people receiving unemployment benefits be forced to take drug tests? Unemployment benefits are not something that people receive for years on end. They have also worked for their benefits and still pay taxes while receiving them. They are tax payers just like you and everyone else that is complaing about where their tax dollars go.

Why should senior citizens and hard working parents that receive food stamps to supplement their meager income be forced to take drug tests?

Admitidly there is a problem with some people using government funds on drugs and other things that that money was not intended for, it's been going on for years and they still haven't been able to stop it. But to generalize, and stereotype everyone that receives food stamps, unemployment , etc as a potential drug abuser is wrong, and no better than racism.

The article says that this effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. That says it all right there. They aren't doing this because of people abusing the system, they are doing it because of the enormous amount of people that now have to use these programs to keep their families housed and fed. And that is a direct result of the failures and mismanagement of wall street. Why is it that whenever these bigwigs mess up it's the American public that is targeted and must pay the price ?

People have been getting SSI for years because they have a problem with drugs, or alcohol, why aren't these people targeted in this legislation? They don't seem to have a problem giving them money that they know is going to be spent on drugs do they ?

Maybe it's just me, but i see something really wrong with this. You work your butt off for years and lose your job because of the economy, now you receive unemployment benefits and must supplement it with food stamps for a short period of time (hopefully). Now some politician wants to tell you that you must subject yourself to drug testing to receive benefits from programs that you have paid into for 10,20,30, or more years.

But hey Joe blow down the street can walk inot a social securtiy office and say i can't work because i'm an alcoholic, or an addict, and the response he gets is no problem, here's a nice fat SSI check for you, plus a medical card, oh and don't forget your food stamps . So he can sit around doing drugs everyday while they knowingly pay for it, but a hardworking guy that lost his job will lose his unemployment if he smokes a joint once in awhile ! Doesn't make sense to me, and i can't suppoet something like that.

If the problem is people that abuse the system, then go after people that have been on welfare for 5,6,7, years, or the people that actually receive SSI benefits because they have admitted to the government that they are addicted to alcohol, or drugs, but don't let them trick you into going after you're fellow Americans that have been forced to use these programs because of this damn recession.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Do you know how many young alcoholics and substance abusers get SSI?

Statistically speaking, about the same amount as exist in the general population. So where's the case for persecuting them, aside, of course, from spite?

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

It isn't about persecution.

It isn't about punishment. It is about starting to make a broken system work like it was meant to work.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Highground

I cain't make muh livin gettin an acktuwal jawb, so I haz to get welfarez so I can do my drugz and nao I cant even get muh welfare!

WOW... thought I was on "the front" website for a second

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:15 PM

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

It isn't about persecution.

It isn't about punishment. It is about starting to make a broken system work like it was meant to work.

I appreciate the platitudes, but if you look at the statistics in the study I cited you'll see that the proportion of welfare recipients who have substance abuse problems is not statistically significant compared to the general population. For the affirming argument to work, one would need to show how you'd save more money (or do more good) denying these people welfare than you'd cost money (or do harm) by implementing the program necessary to achieve that goal. The difficulty of this task is compounded by the fact that you will save at most 5-10% the current expense. To sum it up, how does the proposed change actually make the system work better? If anyone has got a substantive point to that end, I'm all ears.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 10:34 PM

Originally posted by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H
The whole "Chav" thing in the UK is the welfare class.

In the UK there are whole houseing estates where every family on them is on welfare, and every member of a fmaily is claming the dole.

They go stright from school on to the dole and dont ever bother to get a job or look for one.

I seen a video on that exact same thing on a UK online newssite, and I tell ya what, it is happening over here in the US as well. This monster is creating entire family lines of welfare recipients. Honestly, I talked to a gal a while back, who was seriously considering having another baby just to pad her welfare. It's disgusting. When young men and women realize they can (basically) just plop out a unit and get assistance, it makes for absolutely no incentive for either to work. As for foodstamps not being an issue, I have personally been to convenience stores where they will exchange your grub stubs (food stamps) for dollars on a 2 stamp/1 dollar ratio. Just swipe your plastic and Bam! Might as well be a check card.


posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

It isn't about persecution.

It isn't about punishment. It is about starting to make a broken system work like it was meant to work.

This legislation is punishment. Taking away benefits for failing a urinalysis is punishment. There is nowhere in this legislation that states that they would put these individuals into some type of rehabilitation program. That is persecution. Yes this could start to make the broken system work, but it is incomplete. There is nothing to try to help these individuals out on this, just leave them to fend for themselves, which in turn means it affects the normal "hard-working" citizens by increasing crime. Think of the cause (urinalysis) then think of the possible effects just so you can think that you sleep better at night because your one (1) penny is being diverted to a more beneficial program. Whatever, think with the brain that the system has educated for you for just a second. This is just crazy. Think for a second....

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:18 AM
Its this easy!

I work and if my boss wants he can drug test me any time he wants.

If for what ever reason you do NOT work and in one way or another the state is paying your way, They should hold every rite to drug test you!

And that even goes for the people that are really just down on there luck and lost there job due on NO fault of there own.

It does not matter! I get tested,you get tested. How can anyone say it is rite for one grope of people not to get tested?

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 03:06 AM
When I was 5 months pregnant having pre-term labor, my fiance was let go from his job due to the company moving to Mexico.

I went to welfare and tried to get food benefits and was denied.

They told me I didn't qualify for food, but I qualified for medi-cal.

They said that, as long as I could get "even a slice of bread" from my fiance', that I did not qualify for benefits.

There was about a month where we had no income and no food. I used to walk down to Wendy's and request crackers, just so I could eat something that day.

We tried to go to a church once with a food voucher, but we got that sack of food they gave to us home and all it had in it was molded bread, days old glazed donuts, a can of pinto beans, and a few cans of corn and a few black bananas.

Thankfully he found a job at a gas station, and we got back on our feet.

When we were going through this my neighbor woman who had 2 children and a boyfriend that came and went, was able to get full benefits plus Section 8 (housing).

I'll never understand why I was denied food, when I had an at risk income, proof of such, etc.

That said, I don't know exactly where I sit in regards to drug testing. There needs to be an overhaul for certain. I see so many people using benefits for themselves and not the children.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:01 AM
reply to post by Chaos67731

They have no legitimate reason for testing the one group of people.

People that are tested for a job are tested to prove that they are drug free and therefore not a liability to the employer, or a danger to the workplace.

Also not all jobs require random drug testing, just pre employment drug testing and the only time you are ever drug tested again is in the case of a workplace accident.

There are still jobs out there that require no drug testing at all.

Why should an 80 year old person that has worked all their life have to subject themselves to drug testing to supplement their income with food stamps, or a working parent for that matter?

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:24 AM

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?

Why stop there?

Why not mandate for Politician's to be drug tested too?

The Police?

Then Lawyers, Barristers and Judges?

Drug use is not confined to the lowest income levels or benefit recipients, it is endemic in our society at all levels, even more so at the top.

Say no to any Draconian measures put forward by anyone. Surely those who now receive benefits have paid taxes during their working lives, who then has the right to say we can drug test them?

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:42 AM
This is a difficult topic to decide one way or the other, on one hand you have personal privacy, the other taxpayer money intended to help the needy.

In this instance, I tend to lean toward testing, as is well known there are plenty of cases of fraud as indicated by this recent case:

Three in Stockton face charges in alleged $2 million food stamp scheme

STOCKTON - A Stockton man, his brother and daughter have been indicted on charges they ran a food stamp fraud scheme netting $2 million from a downtown smoke shop, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Sacramento said Friday.

Brothers Ahmad Khan, 51, and Mumraiz Khan, 48, have been charged with conspiracy, food stamp fraud and money laundering, among other charges. Ahmad Khan's daughter, Naheed Khan, 23, has been charged with conspiracy.

In the alleged scheme, the three bought food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar from customers at the Smoke Shop & Snack at 425 E. Miner Avenue. The shop had been redeeming the food stamps for five and a half years, prosecutors said.

The assumption is the recipients were taking the cash to buy drugs. It could just as well be cigarettes, alcohol etc. The fact remains that this practice is not an isolated incident, it goes on everyday and most likely across the nation, which means alot of the funds intended to help are being used to pad unscrupulous store owners pockets and recipients' habits.

Something needs to be done, and I guarantee you that while this current Administration and Congress are shoveling money to Wall Street, EVERY single agency in DC is being told to RECOVER money elsewhere, this is just one area where some could be recovered, just watch as this year progresses and see how many instances of the FEDS coming for money anywhere and everywhere, I expect it to be mind-boggling. It goes out the front door and recouped somewhat quietly in the back door....

The potential taxpayer money saved is well worth the additional requirement for testing of the recipients IMO, though I would also include a plan to help those who test positive to help them get away from drugs instead of just shutting off their payments, give them a chance to come clean, because most of them have families that these payments are supposed to be helping.

Hopefully they can get this right, though faith in how the government handles any situation isn't too good right now.

Tough one.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Tayesin
Why stop there?

Why not mandate for Politician's to be drug tested too?

The Police?

Then Lawyers, Barristers and Judges?

Police are drug tested. I think Judges are to too make sure they aren't whacked out on drugs. In fact Police are randomly drug tested.

Once again, you only have to worry if you do drugs. You might as well be saying "We need to get rid of murder laws because the next time I murder some one I might get caught!"

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:09 AM
I have to say in a way our welfare system does need to do something. Drug testing may be a start but they also should be doing a door to door check on the folks getting the welfare checks.

There is a lady living right across the road from me. She moved in back in Dec. She gets welfare big time. They pay her rent, they pay her electric, She gets food stamps, and she gets a monthly check for her 4 kids. The worst part is this lady is drunk daily. She takes off every night and leaves her children locked up in the house alone. They range in ages from age 4 to age 9. Yet CPS is doing nothing because they only have 2 workers and are way to busy to go check.

Last night we had tornado warnings and these kids were alone in the house while mom was gone with 2 men having fun. The lady is running a one woman prostitute ring out of her home. There are about 10 men in and out of there daily. She shoots drugs right there on the porch in front of her kids yet has no money to pay her rent???? Lets just hope the 4 little girls are not being sold.

The bad part is that I work under the wake county police department so cant help. 3 doors up there is another officer that works for Apex police department and he cant help either. The good part is that I happened to get smart this week and took some great video and am passing it onto the DHS office as well as the Harnett county Police this Monday. So I hope to see some help for these kids. But this is happening all over.

To many folks are taking advantage of the welfare system. Those folks need to be off the welfare and have there kids taken away from them. I believe that drug testing as well as a mandatory drop in every so often would be a good thing.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:34 AM

Again, I shouldn't be shocked, but I am.

The insensitive attitude of many on here is staggering.
Quit using drugs and get a job?

The majority of those receiving benefits are not drug abusers and are not addicts.
Many maybe social and casual users.
A massive difference and one that some people just don't seem to be able to differentiate between.
But that is equally true of those who don't receive benefits.

And as for the 'just get off your fat lazy arse and go and find a job' attitude of so many,
Do you live in the real world?
You certainly don't live in mine because in mine people are being laid off in their droves every single day.
There are no jobs!
No-one has any money whatsoever.
People are being driven to crime to make ends meet.
I see it every single day, people losing their dignity and pride.
They want to work, but there simply isn't anything.
I know lots of people who spend 6 days a week doing nothing but look for work, anywhere, but guess what, there is no #ing work out there!!
That is why they are on benefits, because they, like all of us, have been screwed over!
And you talk about them as if they are trash and just downright lazy.
That attitude disgusts me.
Yes, there are people on benefit who are milking the system and abusing it.
Let's change the system, focus on those who see benefits as their right and are unwilling to contribute to society in positive form whatsoever.
Singling out one group is discrimitory.
The system is at fault, so change it!

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in