Do you support drug testing to get approval to be on Welfare?, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 04:37 PM by overseer1136

reply to post by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld

Oh what a happy day for the tax PAYER here in Fl. when that law was passed. 2% of welfare recipients fell off of the books within a month! 3Mil to implement the administrative infrastructure and we're off to the races. Heck yes i supported this because I am NOT paying for some ones weed habit that isn't gonna share!!! I'm also NOT paying for their crack, heroin, oxycontin or whatever else weather or not they"ll share.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 04:48 PM by JanJamboree

No. Not until every employee of every bank (including all the cocaine snorting, scotch swilling, prostitute hiring CEOs) who got any TARP money AT ALL go through the exact same testing that welfare cases do. Why should there be a double standard? All you self-righteous "Christians" saying "im not feeding someone elses bad habit" need to take a hard look at why double standards exist in our society. Why would a poor person be treated differently than a wealthy one? White vs black? Straight vs gay? Its all part of the plan implemented to create partitions in our society so the people actually pulling the strings get away with murder while we bicker among ourselves. Witness what is happening even here in this tiny thread. Check out the DATA below. You think more than 2% of banksters snort cocaine and drink scotch. I would say HELL YES!

www.huffingtonpost.com...
"The Department of Children and Families, which oversees the program, has tested 1,500 to 2,000 recipients since mid-July. About 2.5 percent of those tested positive and about 2 percent declined to take the test, according to state officials."

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 04:51 PM by watchdog8110

Originally posted by overseer1136
reply to post by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld

Oh what a happy day for the tax PAYER here in Fl. when that law was passed. 2% of welfare recipients fell off of the books within a month! 3Mil to implement the administrative infrastructure and we're off to the races. Heck yes i supported this because I am NOT paying for some ones weed habit that isn't gonna share!!! I'm also NOT paying for their crack, heroin, oxycontin or whatever else weather or not they"ll share.

When they start doing this on civic or government employees as well you will see an opening in the jobs market real fast . Then also see the unions fighting for the no testing of civic/government employees . Whats good for the goose is good for the gander .

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 04:51 PM by clowdstalker

Originally posted by sealing
Guess what ?
It ended up costing the state more than ever because less than 2% failed.So the state lost money on top of the welfare because of the cost of paying for all those drug tests.
I love it when neocons think they are gonna stick it to the poor and fail.
(after all they must be on drugs; they are minorities and poor)

Well spoken! You have just underscored the inherent fallacy behind instituting something as ridiculous as penalizing people who need help... "they are poor, therefore they must be riddled with undesirable, antisocial, or otherwise unproductive behavioral glitches," like drug abuse. OR in retrospect, "they are drug abusers,...therefore they must be among the great unwashed and undoubtedly in need of a handout..."

This is the very line of thinking that brought about such wonderful facets of American history like eugenics and forced sterilization. And yes, it is penalizing people in a most unconstitutional way. Making the assumption that there are widespread behavioral causes behind poverty and then following with actions that further assume guilt over innocence before helping an individual or family to acquire basic human needs like food is boondogle in the first order and it saddens me to see people side on the Yes face of this coin.

When people who have a problem need help, it should be given to them. Its not welfare, its basic human decency or have we gone so far down the #er that we have forgotten what that is?

My answer is NO

edit on 10-11-2011 by clowdstalker because: lrn to grammer

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 04:52 PM by Wildbob77

I would support drug testing.

If the parent(s) fail, they need some help so that they can become functional members of society.

Parents need to be a role model for their children. Holding down a job is one of the things parents need to be modeling for their children to be successful.

I don't support punishment of people found with positive tests. I support intervention.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 04:58 PM by overseer1136

Originally posted by watchdog8110

Originally posted by overseer1136
reply to post by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld

Oh what a happy day for the tax PAYER here in Fl. when that law was passed. 2% of welfare recipients fell off of the books within a month! 3Mil to implement the administrative infrastructure and we're off to the races. Heck yes i supported this because I am NOT paying for some ones weed habit that isn't gonna share!!! I'm also NOT paying for their crack, heroin, oxycontin or whatever else weather or not they"ll share.

When they start doing this on civic or government employees as well you will see an opening in the jobs market real fast . Then also see the unions fighting for the no testing of civic/government employees . Whats good for the goose is good for the gander .

I've had to test for every job. I think Unemployment should be the same way. I think welfare should be the same way. I think Gvmnt (Fed,state,local) should be the same as well as Unions on Gvmnt jobsites. I've got no problem with folks burnin some weed every now and then unless its on my dime. No double standard or hypocrasy in that.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:00 PM by calnorak

This question is causing a lot of debate, as it should. I see this as a band-aid for the root cause, which is people needing assistance to live. A majority of people needing to live go out and find employment, some steal and some look for the charity of others.

I personally am against the federal government taking my money and using it in an entitlement program. We have local places that help others that I willingly give my money that I earn to.

The government is a necessary evil, and should only have the specific enumerated powers given to it. You can cite the welfare clause if you want to, I still believe its not about cradle to grave entitlements.

So, in principle the answer is no. Although if one agrees to it then its not illegal, in my opinion.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:02 PM by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld

Originally posted by juveous
Just letting you know OP, this was tried in Florida, and 96% passed. It is now under a halt because of the possible violation of the 4th amendment.

Nearly 1,600 welfare applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid July, but they aren’t required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test, and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana. Read more: www.miamiherald.com...

Its also debatable whether it saves money, (which is what it really boils down to)

The state paid about $1,140 for the 38 negative tests, while saving less than $240 a month by denying benefits over the two positive tests.

colorlines.c om

thanks for the links

we had a big debate about this yesterday in class when my professor asked us this same question, 70% of the class voted "Yes".

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:04 PM by aprilc1

reply to post by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld

My concern would be for the children-would they just not approve the person or would they have the children removed from the home and if they did that where would we put them-there aren't a lot of of decent foster homes out there

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:07 PM by juveous

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by juveous

Could you show me in the Constitution where it says:

The government shall take care of people, pay their bills, wipe their ass, etc etc, when the person is lazy and simply does not want to work and want everything handed to them.
edit on 10-11-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)

lol. I know people would rather just get rid of welfare altogether, but what are your suggestions for dealing with the poor or jobless? Should we get rid of unemployment benefits? A business isn't required by law to hire so many people. Granted people can work the system, but some people currently rely on it instead of reverting to illegal activity to make ends meet.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:10 PM by {davinci}

Originally posted by juveous
Just letting you know OP, this was tried in Florida, and 96% passed. It is now under a halt because of the possible violation of the 4th amendment.

Nearly 1,600 welfare applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid July, but they aren’t required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test, and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana. Read more: www.miamiherald.com...

Its also debatable whether it saves money, (which is what it really boils down to)

The state paid about $1,140 for the 38 negative tests, while saving less than $240 a month by denying benefits over the two positive tests.

colorlines.c om

The fact that most of the 'positives' were for marijuana raises a problem for this idea...Unlike many other drugs a person can grow their own pot instead of having to buy it at all.

Anyone who is hooked on harder drugs is already supplementing their income some how...welfare is not going to support a heroin or coke addiction for more than a couple days.

Welfare is as socialist a program as there can be, why not take it a step further then? Allow a grace period of say 6 - 12 months for a person to try and get things going for themselves. After that period however put people to work for a couple days a week. All levels of government would benefit from having an already paid for workforce available to carry out basic tasks.

Street cleaners, mail stuffers, volunteer work...whatever. The people who are legitimately using the system could retain a bit of pride knowing that they are earning their check to an extent and there is the added bonus of job experience.

Just my thoughts.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:25 PM by Benevolent Heretic

No. I do not support drug testing for any reason other than a demonstrated impairment. In other words, unless a person demonstrates that they are unable to do the job they've been hired to do, or that their driving is impaired, then I don't think drug testing is in order.

Regarding Welfare, if people are getting money from the state, it becomes their money, to do with as they see fit. If they see fit to buy drugs instead of food, or organic produce and bottled water instead of the cheap stuff, I don't think it's anyone else's business.

And remember - not everyone spends money for drugs. If they are taking drugs, there's no guarantee that the Welfare money is being spent on it.

More importantly, I believe drug testing for Welfare is an invasion of privacy without probable cause. If the state sees CAUSE to think a Welfare recipient might be buying drugs, then I would almost understand a drug test, but not without reason to believe.

Originally posted by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld
If you say "No" do you think people recieving welfare should have to do alternative programs to maintain that help? (eg. attend a program/class 2X month)

That's a good question. I feel two ways about that, but I'll read the thread and think about it. I like the idea, but it seems to be another hoop that people who are struggling to survive would have to jump through. They already have to prove that they need the money and people living in poverty don't have cars and money for gas to go to meetings...

If you say "Yes", why do you think so.

If I do come down with a "yes" on this question, it would be because coming together with people who are in the same situation can be a really productive thing. Depending on the class, it could really help some people to socialize and network with others who are looking for work or exploring other skills to get back on their feet. Maybe once a month...

Good topic. And I love your username.

edit on 11/10/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:35 PM by juveous

reply to post by {davinci}

Last year when I lived in L.A, I had to get food stamps for the summer because some failed planning on my part on school and work. There is a minimum hours per week you have to work to be eligible for food stamps (edc card) or debit for non-food. If you don't meet that requirement (20hrs a week i believe) then you have to make up for that by some type of community service that they provide for you. So it isn't just freebies.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:36 PM by angus1745

The whole drug test culture is a disgusting affront to human rights. Just because it is commonplace does not excuse the blatant and tyranical nature of the very idea. Not only do you work for 'company x' but 'company x' owns your body and has exclusive rights over what you do with it in your spare time and what goes into it.

This is tantamount to prostitution.

same goes for welfare, it shouldnt come with conditions, it's supposed to support low income or unemployed, if they choose to spend it irresponsibly it is not only their right it's also nobody elses business.

I dont care what the situation is nobody should be drug testing anyone. It's a violation of our bodies and our freedoms outside the workplace.

edit on 10-11-2011 by angus1745 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:38 PM by Xeven

Not really. I do however support giving them some work to do to earn the money.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:39 PM by KeliOnyx

No drug testing shouldn't be required. Florida has already proven that largely the drug using welfare recipient is little more than a right wing boogeyman. To waste anymore tax dollars on more witch hunts is irresponsible. If you really want to change the system there are much better options. I would rather see things like required hours of community service, harsh penalties for seedy businesses that are defrauding the system. Things that will actually make a positive difference. There will always be people that game the system one way or the other, that is just human nature. But hey if I had my way drug testing, credit checks and background checks would be illegal for private industry to use as means to block employment.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:42 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by projectvxn

I love me some true conservatives.

To the OP: On the monthly class thing, I think it would be great if there was something for people who could attend - in an effort to help them get on their feet or find help in other ways, make contacts and get information. But I don't think it should be a requirement of receiving Welfare.

I think we need some changes to the system. An overhaul would be nice, but as others have said, drug testing is ineffective and the VAST majority of poverty-stricken people would rather eat than take drugs.

edit on 11/10/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:55 PM by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by projectvxn

I love me some true conservatives.

To the OP: On the monthly class thing, I think it would be great if there was something for people who could attend - in an effort to help them get on their feet or find help in other ways, make contacts and get information. But I don't think it should be a requirement of receiving Welfare.

I think we need some changes to the system. An overhaul would be nice, but as others have said, drug testing is ineffective and the VAST majority of poverty-stricken people would rather eat than take drugs.

edit on 11/10/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

well why wouldn't they be able to attend? they have no jobs (majority), kids would be in school (if they have kids) from 8-3 (normally), and from my understanding they are also given bus tokens every month as well. i am NOT in favor with the drug testing but i also think that the people receiving this help (welfare) should put something from their part to maintain it. im not talking about 8hr classes/programs 5 days out the week, a simple of 2-3 times a month in a total of 6-9 hours per month. these classes/programs can be simple classes/programs(eg. parenting classes, substance abuse classes, other language classes [**english]) i don't know, something that may benefit and make the family stronger as a whole.

edit on 10-11-2011 by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 06:00 PM by LeTan

Get rid of the war on drugs.

Get rid of welfare.

Two birds, one stone.

reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 06:01 PM by Aggie Man

At face value, drug testing Welfare recipients sounds all fine and dandy; However, who is paying for those drug tests? If the Welfare recipients are paying for the test, then that is an unfair financial burden on their already tight budgets. If it is the government paying for it, then that is just one more thing that us tax payers are footing the bill for. Not to mention there is whole issue with the 4th Amendment.