It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 19
33
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JMasters
We do it to people on disability who aren't disabled. They hire people to record these people at home doing things they say they can't like heavy lifting. Why not for welfare people?


Yes they do do this, while at the same time they allow alcoholism and drug addiction to be a legitimate reason to claim disability. So really what's the difference, welfare, or disability it's all coming out of your pocket ?

Take away they're welfare and they'll just go and legitimately get disability, which by the way will actually give them more money out of your pocket. So go ahead make a bad situation worse, just remember that when it's time for you to retire and there's no more ss for you to retire on , that you're the one that asked for it.

The fact that peole don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's drug habits is understandable, but really the mentality of some here makes it seem as though these people should be tarred and feathered. And as another poster pointed out, really what's the difference between a welfare recipient duing illegal drugs, or one that is hooked on prescribed drugs like vicodin, or valium, etc ?




posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Yeah, anyone on public assistance should be drug tested. Addicts will not use food stamps and other benefits to feed their families, they will trade them for drugs. You'd be surprised. I worked the same job for over 5 years before losing it and going on unemployment and would be more than happy to submit to a random drug test at any time.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Nunny
 


Really, a life sentence for selling ? While child molesters, and rapists get two years for their crimes someone selling weed should get life ?

And i hate to tell you this but you'd be subsidizing these "low lifes" while they're locked up also, problem is that you'd have to pay more of your tax dollars to subsidize them in prison, than you would while they're on welfare.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I'm all for it. Now, due to the nature that a lot of addicts are already receiving assistance, it would seem to me a lot of testing is already occurring. Seems a certain amount of cooperation between agencies is all that's needed. if they want to get messed up on their dime, fine. If it's my dime, it's my rules. I'd just as soon not enable a drug addict with my money.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I feel that we are dealing with separate issues and trying to make them all seem like one. The problems we are dealing with here are not based on discrimination of any sort. I have needed public assistance due to disability in the past, and as some have stated, had to jump through hoops to get on the program, attend job workshops, show proof that I was sending out resumes and generally looking for work. This was while I was collecting a disability compensation and only applying for medical benefits and food stamps.

I watched as another applicant who just arrived in the state was given medical benefits and food stamps AND also received a transit pass for the week. I asked if I could obtain a transit pass since I was on crutches, and was told that I was not eligible due to the program policy and guidelines.

And I watched as most of these people did sell their food benefits for cash to buy drugs. It was a regular occurrence and the local grocer encouraged the practice. Now politics aside regarding legalization of hemp, pot, cannabis, etc. Before my surgery I used pot to control pain and swelling, in fact was encouraged by some doctors to do so, although they would not go on record to state this, because of the legal ramifications.

Personally, I find that random drug testing as it is currently administered is a flawed process, as it isn't so much used to determine if a person is "high" on the job, rather it is used as an indicator that a person has used drugs within a certain period of time.

If you smoke pot on Saturday with your friends, when you get to work on Monday clean and sober, you are told to go to the clinic and have a UA done. The results are positive for THC, even though you haven't ingested any for over 48 hours. Too bad, your fired for indulging in a controlled substance. The guy in that sloppy cubicle to your left was stink faced drunk on Saturday, and although he passed his drug screening, will be stopping at the bar and getting stink faced before going home. And he will be arriving at the office tomorrow with a flask in his briefcase, while you are pleading your case on deaf ears in HR and then trying to get unemployment and sign up for a drug rehab program.

I do not object to random testing but I do object to the manner in which it is administered and the negative effect it has on decent people that use drugs other than nicotine and alcohol for recreation. And lets not forget the Rush Limbaugh oxycontin and vicodin abusers that have prescriptions for their drugs. The difference is they have a free pass on the drug test and the occasional pot smoker is busted.

There is discrimination in mandatory drug screening, but it is within an employers rights to screen applicants and to test employees for drug use. But is the results used in a positive manner? Is there counseling for abusers or is it a no tolerance policy? Is it fairly administered to all employees or are their exemptions given to managers?

My tax dollars being spent to support individuals and families with welfare should be subjected to same checks and balances that I endure to earn the wages from which those taxes are collected. And that should include not only drug tests, but mandatory job search or at the very least, community service in the welfare office itself.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
To whoever posted that "study" that claimed there was no more drug use among the welfare society than in "standard" society:

That study was conducted almost 17 years ago. There's going to be social changes. This study from 9 years ago states that drug use is 50% more common among welfare families than non-welfare families:


This study examined the prevalence of drug use in a nationally representative sample of 1989 recipients and 6840 nonrecipients of four welfare programs. Data from the 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) were analyzed using the conditional form of multiple logistic regression with matching of respondents on neighborhood of residence. Weighted proportions and variances accounting for the complex sample design of the NHSDA survey were estimated using the Taylor series linearization method, The results indicate that drug use is 50% more common in households with welfare recipients than in nonwelfare households. Programs making welfare eligibility contingent on the recipient working toward a drug-free lifestyle are worth examining, although a vigilant eye must be kept on the potential unintended consequences.

cat.inist.fr...



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Highground
drug use is 50% more common among welfare families than non-welfare families


The question is why is drug mis/use more prevalent amongst those on welfare?

Could it be that if you're on welfare, you are far more likely to live in a run-down area and in poor housing, far more likely to suffer depression, far more likely to suffer low self-esteem from being looked down upon by the rest of society, far less likely to have access to opportunities to escape from the poverty-trap?

'Drugs', whether illegal narcotics, prescription medication, alcohol, or other, are used to numb the psychological effects of the factors described above



[edit on 28-3-2009 by citizen smith]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
This is a draconian idea which I abhor. HOWEVER, if they insist on this measure, I'd be satisfied if they included drug tests for ALL people who receive tax payer money. THIS WOULD INCLUDE ALL POLITICIANS AND EXECUTIVES in companies receiving Stimulus and Bailout money. If they are willing to submit to these measures, then fine. Of course, our so-called elite wouldn't countenance such a program.

If they wouldn't consider it, why should anyone else?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith

Originally posted by Highground
drug use is 50% more common among welfare families than non-welfare families


The question is why is drug mis/use more prevalent amongst those on welfare?

Could it be that if you're on welfare, you are far more likely to live in a run-down area and in poor housing, far more likely to suffer depression, far more likely to suffer low self-esteem from being looked down upon by the rest of society, far less likely to have access to opportunities to escape from the poverty-trap?

'Drugs', whether illegal narcotics, prescription medication, alcohol, or other, are used to numb the psychological effects of the factors described above



[edit on 28-3-2009 by citizen smith]


Yes, I understand, I'm not trying to dispute that. I would expect it's higher for that very reason, I was just attempting to point out the obvious fallacy in using 17-year-old data.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
This should not be considered. This should already be done. Allowing our tax dollars to spent to feed drug habits is a part, albeit small part in what is causing this economic crash.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
This is just another attempt to revitalize the farce that is the "War on Drugs". If anyone thinks stopping government support is going to make people stop doing drugs, then your woefully mistaken.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
If you are on welfare, how would you afford illegal drugs?

Just how many people that get welfare, can buy that stuff when they need food, and other things.

Can there really be that big of a problem of welfare people on drugs.


I agree with this statement alot more then some of the nutters out there.. and beside, drug testing on welfare recipients would cost even more taxpayer money then the actual welfare itself.. This is one argument I see a hypocrisy in with regards to conservatives, They say Taxpayer money belongs to us the People, and that we not government should have that money, personally, I think it needs to be balanced, not one way or the other.. But of course currently, we dont have a surplus yet, but it be better if we did..



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Allowing our tax dollars to spent to feed drug habits is a part, albeit small part in what is causing this economic crash.


So it's ok for Joe/Jane Public on welfare to recieve state-subsidised-healthcare prescriptions to continue taking pharmaceutical drugs that they have become addicted to then?



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Let's start the drug testing at the top, i.e., all members of Congress, all Executive Branch, all high-level state officials (governers, mayors) and on down the line. What a real eye-opener that would be! If were going to waste more money, let's start the wasting with them. Let's not stop there, we should also require all income tax returns of all government officials, state officials and city officials be filed timely, and posted on the internet for all to see. That way we will know where their money is coming from, i.e., which special interest group or lobby is padding their pockets.

You think government should be so intrusive in your personal life... This is giving government the way in... You see it's not about smoking pot or doing drugs, that's what they want you to think....



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Starting at the top would set an example,but they won't do it because they are the most guilty of the guilty,if anyone really is guilty of anything anyway.

Disarmament of U.S.citizens should have started at the top too,but of course they only look out for their own interests,and those they supposedly serve are lucky to be even considered,let alone second to their "almighty powerful selves".

This is just a precedent setting BS kind of thing.

They never tell the truth about anything.

But why bother with the truth when very few understand what it is,and wouldn't even if it were honestly explained to them,in terms they could understand.

Most of the replies on this thread sound like they are scripted from a TV show,you name it,whatever show ya want.

Many of Your responses are learned from the "almighty boob tube".

Shut it off and give yourself about a month or so to learn to think for yourselves again.

You have to consider what is in your head,what information you use to develop your opinions?,who put it there?,how?,and to benefit who?,and how?.

The changeover to digital TV ties into the plan somehow.

There is a lot more going on here than this crap you are given to argue about,and express your pointless opinions on.

Without,understanding,continuity,cooperation and a common purpose,we will never fix anything.

And then there is this redemption stuff.......If the majority of you had any idea what that was,this crap would never be presented by your crooked self serving politicians anyway.

But you would rather cluelessly argue,and express your silly,uninformed and insensitive opinions about things you don't understand.

Just go watch TV,you do less damage there.

I don't mean everyone here,there are a few here who apparently can form reasonable thoughts and opinions on their own,but not many.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by chiponbothshoulders]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Drug testing for those on welfare and unemployment definetly.The amount North americans and europeans spend on drugs numbers in the BILLIONS of dollars every year.Police officers,and military personnel already do drug testing and should continue to do so at irregular intervals.Everytime a cop gets shot in a drug related incident and killed,partial blame is on the drug user as well as the criminal.Advocates to legalize marijuana wont stem the violence in the drug trade.
Weapons going south into Mexico needs to be shutdown and drugs going north needs to be stopped-by you the citizen.Cut off the demand, supply will die.Stop using illegal drugs.Marijuana for medical purposes under strict supervision-sure but in a controlled environment.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
If you are on welfare, how would you afford illegal drugs?

Just how many people that get welfare, can buy that stuff when they need food, and other things.

Can there really be that big of a problem of welfare people on drugs.


Coming from one of those families... YES!! My mom used to sell food stamps (before EBT) for drugs which shed turn and sell/use. We still got food boxes and all and ate meagerly but youd be surprised how much drugs they can maintain with minimal assistance. I was too naive to know back then and we still ate well enough.

I absolutely think this is a GOOD idea.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by SHNIPE]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Drug test senators ,Congressmen,Governors,all federal and state workers an even the president.
Then I say they can test anbody they want.



[edit on 29-3-2009 by spark00]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Something just occured to me, thinking in terms of drug testing of the masses as some have called for throughout this thread.

Here is why, other than my previous post re: the actual CO$T of this, I highly doubt this will go down:

Do you realize just how many people actually do illegal drugs (in any fashion: prescription medication, illicit narcotics, etc) in this day and age? The US has successfully demonized drug use as a lower-class plague, and successfully brainwashed the public into believing that drug addicts equate to low life scum. If they were to make drug-testing mandatory for all public offices, as well as all welfare recipients, they would be forced to admit JUST HOW RAMPANT DRUG ABUSE IS IN EVERY WALK OF LIFE.
As the world leaders in the "War on Drugs", revealing the fact that a healthy majority of our population abuse some form of drugs would only serve to highlight just how hypocritical the drug war really is.

And don't forget, drugs are illegal because of the massive PROFIT to be made. The same reason the Mafia (sometimes reluctantly) became involved in the drug trade, the U.S. policy on drugs is pure facade, with an aim to get a piece of the action that is the drug trade. The sale and use of drugs is something that WILL NEVER, EVER END. Ever. There is no stopping it, save for a few well-placed nuke's in places of major growing (Columbia, Afghanistan, etc.). They know this. Reality sucks sometimes, and people have used mind-altering substances thru all of time, be it to simply "get away from it all" temporarily, or for spiritual reasons. Only recently have they become such a demonized recourse.

I have another point to add. In the process of drug use, there also lies a risk of addiction. I personally have dealt with this demon, and have seen the real horrors associated with it. Here's my thinking: Troubled times and difficulties in day-to-day life both stem from and frequently lead to heavy drug abuse/addiction. Say these people on welfare do become required to submit to a drug screen to receive their benefits. Generally speaking, people on welfare are in a stage of their life in which they are not living very comfortably. Struggles to get thru the day are only accentuated by dealing with a powerful addiction. These people have a DISEASE. Their brain, much like my own, has been rewired to create this addiction/dependance.

Ok, so they they test a sample pool of welfare applicants. Say 150 people. The results come back, and show that 95 of these people have tested positive for an illegal substance. Hypothetically, these 95 people, who are struggling to make ends meet enough to satisfy both necessities for living (food, water, shelter, etc.) AND on top of that to feed a debilitating addiction. Many likely have to resort to some sort of crime to fund this lifestyle. Now-they've tested positive, so they decide to take these benefits away. These people, who already are in need of serious rehabilitation (which they could never dream of affording BEFORE losing their benefits, mind you), are now deprived of their source for food/water/shelter. Do you really think they are going to NOT react, and NOT take a course of action to remedy this problem? Not only do they have their brain craving whatever substance their dependant on, but now their stomach is empty and panging for ANYTHING of nutritional value.

How, in the name of God, do you think they are going to handle this? Their previous small-scale thefts/robberies to pay for their daily fix are going to be forced to up the ante JUST TO EAT. What if they have a family, and/or children? What lengths would you take to provide for your loved ones? Imagine that state of mind, and multiply it by a drug addiction demanding recourse. What you get is a wave of crime unimaginable to you and I. These people need help. Unless they're willing to pay for these people to go thru rehab, the resulting crime wave will truly lead to disaster



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Armchair Philosopher
This is a draconian idea which I abhor. HOWEVER, if they insist on this measure, I'd be satisfied if they included drug tests for ALL people who receive tax payer money. THIS WOULD INCLUDE ALL POLITICIANS AND EXECUTIVES in companies receiving Stimulus and Bailout money. If they are willing to submit to these measures, then fine. Of course, our so-called elite wouldn't countenance such a program.

If they wouldn't consider it, why should anyone else?


I agree. I also wonder who's gonna be paying for all those drug tests.




top topics



 
33
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join