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.

 

Why drug testing of welfare recipients is a bad idea

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

To those that say "invasion of privacy". Um, it is tax payers supporting them. It is OUR money! I believe tax payers should know who they are supporting.


But it's still an invasion of privacy...

I agree with you, welfare recipients should not be spending their money on drugs. However, I am less concerned about my tax dollars going to support a drug addicts habit, than I am about spending more tax dollars uselessly drug testing thousands of people just so we can weed out the addicts.

The issue here isn't morality, it's simple cost-effectiveness. Drug testing is an expensive, inefficient process. The fact remains, once these people are off welfare they will most likely turn to crime, damaging society and costing the taxpayer even more.


That being said, drug testing in and of itself is a massive invasion of privacy. Employers should not be allowed to do it, unless it is a high risk situation or public servants such as police officers. If Jimmy's crack habit is interfering with his ability to do his job, then his employer can fire him on the basis that he is not performing his tasks adequately. If john, on the other hand, works hard and then goes home and smokes a joint at the end of his shift, what's the problem, exactly? John should not be fired just for failing a drug test if he's a good worker and doesn't let his habit affect his job performance. Jimmy should be fired because he's a bad worker, not because some test results came back dirty.

Then again, I'm an old fashioned libertarian and an advocate of personal responsibility... So most Americans disagree with me.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
To say it simply, they get the drugs from the government. Its brought into low income neighborhoods...thats why its funny. On a somewhat related note, I went to visit my brother in the suburbs and we were talking about drug tests....you even need one over there to work in a convenient store....if they gave out drug tests in the city, like here in NY, they would have to fire more than half of its workers.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I don't think people on welfare should be watching porn on my tax paying dollars either. I mean, if they save money on food, they have more money for x rated materials. I think the government should test them for porn too.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Everyone wants to cry it's an invasion of privacy yet you don't complain when they make you take a drug test for a job and they run your credit for a job.

Arent those too an invasion of privacy or is it just ok when you want to get free money?

I dont like having to take a drug test or have my credit run for a minimum wage job but you know what? It's a job so I do it...



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

It's illegal, I dont care who you are. If you want the help you can stop smoking...period. Do you want to eat or do you want to get high? Which is more important?



And here we get to the crux of the issue...

Yes it is illegal, but are the laws just?

Will you support the police officers who point guns in people's faces and steal their phones because filming the police is becoming illegal?

Just because there is a law does not mean the law is fair. The entire national drug policy is unconstitutional anyway, it violates the 10th amendment. Drug tests do unfairly target users of marijuana, look up how long marijuana is detectable by a drug test versus the real hard drugs such as heroin, crack, coc aine, meth, etc.

Decriminalization is still a long way off here in Florida, but the rest of the world (and most of the country) is largely waking up to the fact that marijuana is a patently harmless recreational/medicinal drug.


Sorry to go off topic, I just felt necessary to interject on that point.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_


Again flawed logic. Submitting to a drug test to get back the money that is owed to you? Submitting to a drug test to get a loan that you will have to pay back? These people receiving welfare do not have to pay it back! It is assistance that we the tax payers GIVE them.


Wrong again. It is a loan. My mother had to get assistance about 15 years ago. They are still sending her a bill for about $600, every single month since then.

And if you were to come off welfare and have some windfall, they would take it. Even if you suddenly become gainfully employed, they can garnish your tax return to recover the cost of the assistance.

EDIT to add: And with that, I really am out til later folks. I really do have to go mow two lawns. Lol.
edit on 7-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Everyone wants to cry it's an invasion of privacy yet you don't complain when they make you take a drug test for a job and they run your credit for a job.

Arent those too an invasion of privacy or is it just ok when you want to get free money?

I dont like having to take a drug test or have my credit run for a minimum wage job but you know what? It's a job so I do it...



Yes, those are both invasions of privacy. See my earlier post.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Where do you draw the line at welfare recipient. There has been a lot of tax payers money or "free money" been thrown around Some of the largest recipients have been those who work in the biggest private companies in America. Surely testing one group of welfare recipients over another is discrimination.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by SpaDe_


Again flawed logic. Submitting to a drug test to get back the money that is owed to you? Submitting to a drug test to get a loan that you will have to pay back? These people receiving welfare do not have to pay it back! It is assistance that we the tax payers GIVE them.


Wrong again. It is a loan. My mother had to get assistance about 15 years ago. They are still sending her a bill for about $600, every single month since then.

And if you were to come off welfare and have some windfall, they would take it. Even if you suddenly become gainfully employed, they can garnish your tax return to recover the cost of the assistance.

EDIT to add: And with that, I really am out til later folks. I really do have to go mow two lawns. Lol.
edit on 7-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)


Better check your facts. Welfare recipients are only required to pay back any welfare payments in the event of overpayment or welfare fraud. Your mother probably was over paid. Here is a quick link, but please do the research yourself. Welfare is not required to be repaid period. Info Here

As far as your windfall theory, that as well is total BS. Mich. man wins $2M lotto, retains welfare



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by SpaDe_


Again flawed logic. Submitting to a drug test to get back the money that is owed to you? Submitting to a drug test to get a loan that you will have to pay back? These people receiving welfare do not have to pay it back! It is assistance that we the tax payers GIVE them.


Wrong again. It is a loan. My mother had to get assistance about 15 years ago. They are still sending her a bill for about $600, every single month since then.

And if you were to come off welfare and have some windfall, they would take it. Even if you suddenly become gainfully employed, they can garnish your tax return to recover the cost of the assistance.

EDIT to add: And with that, I really am out til later folks. I really do have to go mow two lawns. Lol.
edit on 7-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)


Better check your facts. Welfare recipients are only required to pay back any welfare payments in the event of overpayment or welfare fraud. Your mother probably was over paid. Here is a quick link, but please do the research yourself. Welfare is not required to be repaid period. Info Here

As far as your windfall theory, that as well is total BS. Mich. man wins $2M lotto, retains welfare



I received welfare benefits when my 2 kids were little. The father was a deadbeat. He would quit his job whenever child support caught up with him. (He knows just what to do to get over on the state and anyone he meets I soon learned but not soon enough I guess, evil b@st@rd!) Anyways I struggled and saved every penny I received from welfare to put a roof over our heads and food in our mouths. When the kids were old enough to go to school So Did I!! I worked part time and went to school I now have a great career and got myself off of welfare ( Unlike a majority of people!!!) Now huh,12 years later I was in a bad car accident. I filed a lawsuit with the other drivers insurance company. Now the state welfare office is coming out of the wood work claiming I have to repay the benefits I received 12 years ago.I am only receiving a 20,000 settlement. They are taking half of it not even leaving me enough money to cover my medical bills which my health insurance refuses to pay since I am receiving a settlement. My attorney says theres nothing I can do about it THATS THE LAW..It just dont seem fair or right to me AT ALL!!!...

link


EDIT to add: The lottery winner was getting foodstamps, not welfare. Food stamps do not have to be repaid and are based in your monthly income. You could have $2million dollars in your bank account ans still get foodstamps if you suddenly lost your job and had no income. Same goes for Unemployment Insurance.
edit on 7-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Ok, and what does that sad story prove? Nothing! Sorry man but there is no back story on this yahoo answers story. Could she have been over paid? Absolutely! Bottom line is you do not have to pay back welfare!

ETA: You wanna use yahooanswers then here How does the welfare system work? Do you ever have to pay the money you get back to the government? Etc, etc,?
edit on 6/7/2011 by SpaDe_ because: to add link to similar yahoo answer



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


I am going to0 reply here in parts to your post...




Yes they are! People are not getting assistance because people who shouldn't be on it are IE drug addicts and dealers. I LIVE in Florida and this is a problem here a huge one and I will defend this bill til the end because it affects me and people around me. You have Joe Blow in one corner who works a regular job has a family but needs assistance. He goes and applies and gets denied, then you have Jack Blow in the other corner who doesnt work, but works the streets making hundreds of dollars a day yet he milks the system for welfare, food stamps,housing and so on. Now who should be on it?? I see this happen here a lot. I work in a bar and I see first hand the amount of abuse that goes on and they are all proud of it. They just think oh "I get free cheese," meanwhile you have people who really need that help starving or living on the street.


There is nothing in this law that will raise the bar on how much money you are allowed to earn. If you are working, you make too much money, and don't "need" the money.

Do you honestly believe they are going to kick a few people off welfare, just to let a few more people on who make MORE money than the set standard? People get denied because they make too much money, not because 3% of welfare recipients are on drugs.

So that argument has no logical basis.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 





You can't compare having a disease to being a drug addict give me a break. It's not the same and you know it. A drug addict if they can buy drugs they dont need assistance, they need help to fix their life so they can make it on their own. I know all about addiction and have helped many people recover and addiction is not the same as having an STD...They are two totally different things.


Debatable I suppose, but the government does classify it as a disease, and you can sue for discrimination if you are fired for being an addict.

Regardless, you just admitted yourself that these people need help to fix their lives. Leaving them to starve to death and delve deeper into crime and desperation is not the answer.

Aside from other aspects such as cost and Constitutionality and so forth. If I were to agree to this program on that basis alone, I would say that anyone who tested positive should be told to go to rehab. But even there, really, you can't force rehab on someone. The biggest step is for them to walk through that door on their own. And threatening them with starvation is not going to accomplish that.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 





Care to prove this with some sources? Every single person I know on welfare right now should NOT be on it. They abuse it and yes they are pill heads or pot heads. Again if you have money to buy weed, coke or pills you dont need govt assistance you need to reassess your priorities. You know how many times I get asked if I want to buy someones EBT card for cash so they can go buy everything else but what that card is intended for? I get asked alot and it makes me sick because those same people are complaining a week later they have no food to feed their kids or they can't pay this bill. Get them help, don't feed their addiction. I am not against marijuana, personally I believe it should be legal but the fact of the matter is it isn't and if you want the govt and tax payers to pay your bills and feed you then you need to lay off all drugs even MJ. Growing it is illegal and again my statement stands on welfare recipients when it comes to getting assistance and being on any kind of drug no matter my stand on said drug.


The numbers come from one of the links in the article.

You reveal your bias when you say that everyone you know, not one person "deserves" welfare. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is willing to grovel and jump through all those hoops, yes, they deserve it. I don't care if the are a crack-head, a pot-smoker or a drunk, or maybe someone with an undiagnosed mental disorder like social anxiety.

Speaking of which, there is no provision in this bill to stop people from drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, or from taking "legal" drugs for that matter. Maybe you think that people on welfare are not entitled to birthday cake or nutritious food either? Eat ramen, stare at the walls, and shut up. There's the ideal welfare recipient right?

(Don't men to sound testy, just how I talk really. I sound like a wiseguy sometimes thought I don't mean to.)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 





This isn't a surprise. My mom was on welfare while I was growing up. She was a single parent who put herself through school with three kids and worked two jobs. People today want everything handed to them and they dont want to work for it. My mom busted her ass to raise us and we never lacked for anything, she did. When she didnt need assistance anymore she went down to the office and told them to take her off and give someone else the chance she was given. Too bad people dont seem to think this way anymore, at least not anyone I have ever known to be on it. They see it as free money they will always get and it shouldnt be that way. People need to adjust their priorities but they dont. As for the corruption, a lot of the people stamping those welfare packets approved or not approved are corrupt as well..that is another issue here all together. I know the welfare system in Florida and I have seen how it works..It doesnt work that well and well if this helps in any way get those the help they need then fine and get rid of those who don't deserve it then fine. I would much rather money go to programs to help people educate themselves or rehabilitate themselves so they dont have to be on welfare their entire lives. The ones that abuse it ruin it for those who don't.


The money isn't going to "go" anywhere, don't you get it. This program is likely to spend upwards of a hundred-million dollars, in order to kick a few people off welfare who might get 12-grand in benefits.

You also make a blanket statement about people on welfare "today." I happen to know quite a few people who have been bouncing on and off welfare for the past few years, just trying to get by. I myself had to go on food stamps a few months ago after decades of contributing my own tax dollars. I have no shame in taking a little back now. But I'll be damned if the government is going to get a DNA sample from me.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
I believe as long as employers have the right to drug test, then those collecting state aid should have to submit to the same testing. For instance unemployment; you are suppose to be physically able and seeking work to receive benefits. If you can't pass a drug test, how are you physically able to work? The second point, has welfare really helped anyone? Those collecting welfare are on the rise. The government doesn't have steps in place to get people from collecting to finding a job. The government relies on only the fact people should be trying to better themselves. Its just an endless cycle.


Physically able to work? I have worked a lot of job sites with stoners. Most were better workers in fact.

The government can't help people find jobs that aren't there.

Some jobs also require credit checks. Should you be denied benefits if you have bad credit?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Not only do I think they should be drug tested, but their financial spending should be weekly monitored too along with being forced to attend a financial class along side any employment classes....

I have seen more than enough "welfare" recipients wearing designer clothes, shoes, handbags and driving high end cars....and spending their money on drugs.

Want a hand out at tax payer expense? Then you must abide by (insert rules here)....

To those that say "invasion of privacy". Um, it is tax payers supporting them. It is OUR money! I believe tax payers should know who they are supporting.



Respect your right to an opinion mate, but seriously?
As the article pointed out, this is not going to save you any tax money, the more you invade someones privacy to find out if they are using your Tax money properly the more it is going to cost you.
Do you want to pay people hourly to:
Investigate the drug use
test for drug use
plan recovery steps for the user

All these things quickly add up to a LOT more than you would spend just giving them the money.

The best way you can rest assured your tax is going to the right people is to legalise all drugs, this will destroy the black market so all trading is taxed, and you not only get to keep your money but you get theirs too. Let those who wish to use drugs abuse themselves, OD and die and then you dont have to pay for them any more.

There is your solution!

Take your pick:
Legal Drugs they pay for and face the repercussions themselves
OR
Illegal Drugs you pay for and repercussions you pay for

MORALLY RIGHT IS NOT ALWAYS PRACTICALLY RIGHT
edit on 7-6-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Everyone wants to cry it's an invasion of privacy yet you don't complain when they make you take a drug test for a job and they run your credit for a job.

Arent those too an invasion of privacy or is it just ok when you want to get free money?

I dont like having to take a drug test or have my credit run for a minimum wage job but you know what? It's a job so I do it...



I don't. I quit my job when they told me I had to do a drug test and credit check. Now I'm on welfare.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I don't see that as off topic at all, and was brought up in the OP link. Star.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Where do you draw the line at welfare recipient. There has been a lot of tax payers money or "free money" been thrown around Some of the largest recipients have been those who work in the biggest private companies in America. Surely testing one group of welfare recipients over another is discrimination.


I can think of a lot of CEO's that got hundreds of billions in bailouts then threw parties and bought jets with the money. Maybe they should be drug tested and give the money back if they fail.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join