States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I agree with the policy and I would also establish alcohol and tobacco limits.

If you are unemployed, you should be looking for work rather than wasting money on cigarettes or staggering around drunk.

Some say thats authoritarian- and I can't argue with that. It is. However welfare benefits are inherently authoritarian-collectivistic, so how about we use that authoritarianism for good rather than allowing society to degenerate.

Tobacco and Alcohol limits could easily be established via rationing through the system I mentioned that would be based on the US military's Eagle Cash/EZ Pay.



[edit on 26/3/09 by MikeboydUS]

Good idea. People shouldn't get welfare if they spend their money on drugs.

In my opinion, anyway.

reply to post by citizen smith


You are right so where does it all stop? What will you give up to keep your status? When you have had enough will you be out there in the streets with the rest of the undesireables? Why dont we gather all of them up give them all the drugs and alcohol, cigs, ect. Put them somewhere and force them to hoe the feilds,work for the betterment of us and for there rice. Slavery. And if they dont want to do that then, poof. I think I should just go with the flow and do it because it will be easier and you did. (Sorry for the little rant) My mind was just wandering

Originally posted by Fremd
reply to post by 44soulslayer

 

Civil rights are granted by authorities, much as public support/salaries are. Thus there is no protection from examination for those who claim on the public purse.

Yes, you're correct. But this isnt saying "you're going to be tested simply because we want to"

This is saying "if you want to get free money, you're going to be tested"

for the same reason felons on parole get tested
for the same reason the government tests your eye sight before they give you a drivers license
for the same reason the government tells you it's okay to own a firearm as long as you pass a background check.

It's not about civil rights. It's about common sense.

You're lying to yourself if you don't think a very large majority of the welfare community is just like the stereotype says they are.


Oh, and my #2 string attached would be to say that minors in the household must abide by truancy laws.
If my money is going to someone else, it should be an investment. At least keep their butts in school instead of running the streets because "it's cool"

You misunderstood me.

I'm saying that because civil rights are granted by authorities, they can be repealed at whim.

I entirely agree with your post.

Natural rights cannot be infringed, which is why those that do not take money from the government (ie from others) cannot be tested at whim.

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


We are all supporting their habit, and that is the problem.

We should be supporting them for a short amount of time until they can get back on their feet. We should not be supporting their illegal habits.

reply to post by Fremd


"In the BIG BIG picture, removing the worthless leeches from the welfare system is a good...no...it's a marvelous thing that i've been dreaming of for a long long time."

I agree 100%.
Let's deny aid to all who do not put into the system...starting with the children.

A thin line on a very slippery slope, it is that we tread, between civil and constitutional authority.

If some one who has the right to PAY into the system, as a self-employed
taxpayer, is denied assistance due to that person's lifestyle, be it tobacco, alcohol, or drug use, upon loss of income to pay into the system...
is it RIGHT?

Where is the opt out button? If I can not fully expect to get something in return, why MUST I pay into it?

Originally posted by pyrytyes


I did not express, in any way, that I condone a mother on any sort of assistance, using any illegal substance.

Then what did your comment mean about mothers on welfare toking on a doobie? Isn't that illegal?

Would you deny the welfare? Or take in the children, to provide for their shelter, food clothing? Or provide the mother's love, and caring?

What's the difference? If the mother does something illegal, then, yes, the children should be taken away and placed into a home where such illegal activites, like toking on doobies doesn't happen. Plus, what difference would it make, since they are already being taken care of by me, and other tax payers already anyway?

Let's just take the kids away from them, as there are more than the one, and give them to you...
BECAUSE, I do not wish for MY tax dollars to be applied for the life of the children, once taken from the mother.

Let's not forget, your example began with a mother that is already doing something illegal to begin with. So, your tax dollars are already going to support them, anyway.

I'll go one step further...

Line the public school students up for a whiz quiz, next Tuesday... those that fail are expelled... no ifs, ands, or buts.

That would ease the educational problems we are currently experiencing.

Now that quote not only has nothing to do with the topic, but it's pretty silly and a poor excuse to back up what you just said, here!

edit for quote fix


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Blanca Rose]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Blanca Rose]

The entire system is badly broken. There was a saying, "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life". Why are people who are perfectly physicaly and mentaly able to work not doing it? Because they can choose not to work and collect public assistance. Drug testing for your welfare check is a start. But there needs to be a way that anyone who can work does. If you have never built a house before, or even wired a light switch, but you get a job as a construction helper, you will be able to at least wire a switch after some time. You might even find that you have some tallent you didn't know about. This is not about punishing people who are already down on their luck, it's about making them better people with better attitudes who WANT to go out and work. Fix the system and you will help the people.

And forget the bleeding heart crap. If your kids are hungry, and you have a choice to spend the last 5 dollars on some food or a blunt, anyone with sense knows which one is right.

reply to post by pyrytyes


Because I and you pay into social security and neither of us will benefit from that. I live in flint michigan. We have 4th and 5th generation welfare. Children learn from their parents. If they arent held responsible, what does the child learn?

To the OP, I love that avat, who is it? please tell me its you!!!

I see this as one of two ways.

1) The drug testing companies have been successful in their lobbying efforts and are being rewarded in kind by state legislators.

OR

2) The legislators have found a quick way to reduce their budget if they believe that a good number of recipients are in fact drug users.

Either way this issue is about money.

Something I found of interest.

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act authorized (but did not require) states to impose mandatory drug testing as a prerequisite to receiving state welfare assistance.[iii]

www.aclu.org...

reply to post by jam321


Well, if it wasn't required, then it wasn't done. Hardly anything that is required is done, it seems. :shk:

And, of course it is about money. What isn't about money these days?

reply to post by heather65


The government needs to include itself as well, they are all welfare recipients, as they live off the dole of the people.

test all ceo's of companies who take tax breaks, that is nothing more than corporate welfare.

Teachers all need to be tested too, as students rights have all but been squashed anymore.

Drug test all who hold a drivers license.

Drug test all Drs and Nurses, they are responsible for our health!!

Drug test all parents, monthly, after all they have little kids! And drug test the kids too, make sure they stay pure.




Why do yall think they are pushing drug tests so much? It isnt to keep people off drugs, they could care less. I think they use our dna to form databases. Nothing good can ever come of mandatory drug testing, it is pure invasion of privacy, and who knows what they do with the samples when they are done! This is insane.

reply to post by Blanca Rose


I made my original post, essentially to point out that such laws would be discriminatory...because of the children.

While I agree that the kids should be taken away, it ain't gonna happen because there are too many of them. Therefore, discriminatory.

I am all for drug testing to qualify for certain benefits, like welfare; however, employment benefits are a different story.

My comment about testing students was a "go one further", meaning, why stop at unemployment, welfare, etc.?
My taxes are applied to the school system, are they not? Why should I be paying for a druggies education, so long as they are in the public school system?

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by andy1033

 

Oh Andy, you don't get out much do you? You should talk to someone from the hood. You would be amazed at what goes on there. This will never pass due to the bleeding hearts out there. I am all for it. When I was in the millitary and working for other companies after that, if I tested positive, I would no longer be able to support my family.

I live in london, and i know being on the unemployment benefit means you get zilch. I always remember going to sign on to get the dole, and people would turn up with bmw's etcc and big rings,a nd sign on for the dole.

I know what you mean, but is drugs more important than food, to alot of these people?

reply to post by HooHaa


And I'm so near to reaping the benefits of my right paying into SS for all this time.

Oh well, ("shrugging shoulders, hands - palm up- before me, shaking head" smiley emicon goes here) live and wonder why, learn and die.

Maybe next time around will be better...

This is a terrible idea.

Barring external, objective evidence of drug use on the part of the people involved, it is a direct violation of Amendment 4 of the Bill of Rights

It further increases gov't intrusion into individual lives, already too high

It will add expense and prove ineffective (consider the smashing success of the general War on Drugs)

It is a result of the anti-drug hysteria in the US... which may be, ironically, one of the most over-drugged cultures on the planet

It imposes moral constraints on behavior based on a narrow world view. What about testing for alcohol or tobacco? Those are drugs, with high health care consequences... going to deny food to children of people that smoke cigarettes? What about drugs like Viagra and such? Those drugs promote "the sex"... another 'evil' behavior. Deny food to kids of people that have sex?

It is another attempt at a quick, feel-good and ultimately useless solution to a problem that has been decades in creation and is based more on the fundamental problems that have not yet been well solved for civilized cultures.

Terrible idea.

ETA: What about testing CEOs and other employees of businesses that get gov't support? I.E. the oil companies, the drug companies, the agribusiness industry, etc. etc. etc.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

Originally posted 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.
All people should, which its unconstitutional.
So no one should have to.
Lets start drug testing Politicians and Police officers as well?
Or do you only get drug tested, based upon how you are judged and discriminated against by the wealthy elite pieces of garbage?

What exactly is it that would make it unconstitutional?
The "elite" pieces of garbage? Oh....... you mean those who create jobs and sign peoples paychecks? I'm in that category, and I'm hardly what one would call "elite."

Originally posted by skeptic1
nd, what does any of that have to do with drug testing people who receive state/tax-payer assistance?

They are no more and no less than people who have jobs that require random drug testing. Why should they be treated any differently?

What I find interesting is that your basic line of reasoning breaks down to;
"if I have to do it, they should too."

You never seem to question, "why do I have to do it?"

Drug testing is an invasion of privacy, and every job I have ever worked that mandated pre-employment drug testing has employees who regularly use drugs. The pre-employment test simply isnt that hard to circumvent. Its pointless. And on the jobs I have worked that called for pre-employment testing there were frequently employees which were hard core drinkers who would come in still drunk from the night before or hung over all to hell and who were a danger to us all because both are still an impairment of your resoning and judgment. ( I work in construction and having a hung over crane operator or high voltage cable splicer is just not a good thing. Cut the wrong cable and we all go boom. Swing the boom too hard and we all go squish.)

Our leaders DONT have to undergo drug tests. You would think the guys in charge of the nukes should, wouldnt you? And the person who mentioned Wall Street is right on the money. Many of them are hopped up on all sorts of stuff and on ex-stock broker I know is hooked to this day on the anti-anxiety drugs they were turned onto by their fellow workers to help keep their heart rate down while they were working.

Drug testing is a waste of time, a waste of money, and an invasion of privacy that is generally only imposed upon the poor. Is drug use a problem in the US? Absolutely. Do people on drugs pose a danger to other workers? Absolutely. Could there be a better way of dealing with it than to just round up all the low level workers and have them pee in cups? I think so. How about writing up and sending home anyone who comes to the job site and cant perform properly regardless what is causing the impaired performance? Prescription meds, lack of sleep, hangover, illicit substances, or just plain carelessness?

Drugs are not a new problem. And we managed for hundreds of years to get things done without drug testing. I personally do not use drugs and I am the most moderate of drinkers, so I dont have anything to "hide" but I sure am sick of having to have my privacy violated every time I change jobs just because managers are too lazy to fire people who are performing poorly on the job.

The solution for my annoyance over having MY privacy violated is not to encode into law that everyone else have theirs violated too. Thats a bitter, vengeful way of thinking. How about encoding into law that no one have their privacy violated in a blanket way and dealing with only those who are causing problems in the workplace?

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

The fourth amendment has no bearing whatsoever in this matter. It pertains to matters which guard against unreasonable searches and seizures.
No "searches" or "seizures" would be involved unless, possibly, one tested positive, in which case the state would have just cause.
And, before you say it, it would not violate anyone's "right" to privacy, which is nowhere to be found in the Bill of Rights. It states that people have a right to be "secure in their papers and effects." (paraphrased)

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
If the mother does something illegal, then, yes, the children should be taken away and placed into a home where such illegal activites, like toking on doobies doesn't happen. Plus, what difference would it make, since they are already being taken care of by me, and other tax payers already anyway?

In that case, why not start the purge from the top, rather than the bottom of the social pile...

Lets start with politicians taking illegal bribes from drug-testing corporates to pass bills requiring mandatory drug testing for a start...after all, the politician kids are being exposed to illegal activity

Then the insider and short-selling traders...again, illegal activity and their kids are exposed to said activity

Both are already being paid by your tax-dollars in bailouts and bonuses, so why pick on those who you see as less fortunate than yourself?

Oh, I get it now, its the 'blame the easy target' arguement aint it