• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

buck said:
On the surface I like that idea much more then drug testing. I wonder how it really works in practice. In Illinois, I used to help out at a homeless shelter, and the homeless had it down to a science in order to get around the requirements the state had to recieve benefits.
Click to expand...

Be it rich or poor, regardless of the system, people learn to game it. :coffeepap
 
buck said:
The average price is meaningless. The government would obviously have a lot of tests per year and would qualify for the lowest rates, most likely in the $25.00 range. The $65.00 rate / test was for companies that only get 5-10 tests per year.
Click to expand...

Well the cost of collection isn't based on volume so average price matters.
 
Catawba said:
As does giving federal tax cuts to addicts. Drugs are bad, umkay..........
Click to expand...

WTF do tax cuts have to do with anything?

You simply cannot stay on topic can you?
 
Drug testing as a condition of receiving compensation being justified, opens doors for other conditions. Until conditional requirements make it difficult for the actual people that need a small push to recover from a situation are unable to receive any help. It is obvious that the push to drug test welfare reciepants is based on the idea that drug testing will remove drug users from the system. It is a way of regulating who can and who cannot receive aid. But it is a broad regulation that ignores the simple concept of liberty. The rule assumes guilt of everyone. I would be more willing to support drug testing of people that have been convicted of being involved with drugs in some shape of form.

But in the end I just see as you said just more government control. And I also see it ass wasting more money in a system that already wastes money.

In New Mexico if you receive TANF (cash assistance) you may only receive it for 60 months in a lifetime. Or you can apply for a one time lump sum. If you receive TANF and/or food assistance you are automatically enrolled in a program called New Mexico Works. This program requires you to apply for employment but first you must attend life skills classes. You may also receive training. But either way you are required to apply for work a certain number of applications must be filled out and turned in every week. You are also required to give a certain amount of hours of being employed (20-40 hours I dont remember the actual amount). And if you are unable to find a job you must volunteer at a charity of your choice. That charity must be approved by NMW and you must get signatures Etc. If you do not comply then you loose TANF foodstamps Etc. for a certain amount of time you are banned from the system.

I know some pretty lazy people that cannot meet the requirements of New Mexico Works. And they were banned. I also know some people that quite the program and just got a job since it was easier. I dont know what requirements other states have but at least here you dont get easy money. And most jobs UA these days so I would imagine that a dirty UA is going to be addressed by your case worker at some point anyways.

I am support making assistance available but design that system as an aid to become a viable member of society. If you need assistance make it conditional on the recipient working for that assistance. And if they dont comply ban then from the system and require them to jump through hurdles if they want to be unbanned.

I just think that drug testing alone wont really achieve anything. SOme people will simply stop using drugs while receiving assistance. Thats great but if they are still just as lazy the drug test did not achieve anything of worth.
Click to expand...

That is a great program they have out there. Awesome
 
Another thing to add to this conversation about drug testing, dont they have those kits with the little sticks in them. They dip them in your pee and they change colors if your piss is hot? Those are likely much cheaper than $25 a person and the social workers can read them right then and there.
 
Neomalthusian said:
WTF do tax cuts have to do with anything?

You simply cannot stay on topic can you?
Click to expand...

We were not talking about drug testing for people that benefit from government policy? What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
 
muciti said:
Another thing to add to this conversation about drug testing, dont they have those kits with the little sticks in them. They dip them in your pee and they change colors if your piss is hot? Those are likely much cheaper than $25 a person and the social workers can read them right then and there.
Click to expand...

If testing has legal ramifications they should use reliable tests done in a lab not some silly strip from cvs.
 
kenvin said:
Well the cost of collection isn't based on volume so average price matters.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would suspect that the price of collection could easily be negotiated based on volume. However, the company I quoted from, indicated that they are charging their highest volume clients about $25.00 per test including collection fees (which according to them average $8.00). So, no. The average price really doesn't matter - since you are including small companies that are charged much higher rates per test. Look. You are wrong, but will obviously keep trying to convince yourself you were right. So, i'll let you win. I don't want to be responsible for any existential crisis or anything.
 
buck said:
On the surface I like that idea much more then drug testing. I wonder how it really works in practice. In Illinois, I used to help out at a homeless shelter, and the homeless had it down to a science in order to get around the requirements the state had to recieve benefits.
Click to expand...
I think its a good start, but I think your analogy applies to a certain degree. Some people just dont get the part about you could do the same thing on your own without someone telling you to do it. Personally I would require a more strict atmosphere within the program. Like have them report to sign in every morning. Place them in normal community service jobs like road side trash removal. They are a work force after all so put them to work. It does not cost the tax payer anymore to employee a person that they are already paying the same amount of money too. And despite the stereotyping of welfare people, most of them would like to work.

One of the concept of New Mexico Works is to get people used to working. It teaches them the habit of "I have to work".
 
buck said:
Actually, I would suspect that the price of collection could easily be negotiated based on volume. However, the company I quoted from, indicated that they are charging their highest volume clients about $25.00 per test including collection fees (which according to them average $8.00). So, no. The average price really doesn't matter - since you are including small companies that are charged much higher rates per test. Look. You are wrong, but will obviously keep trying to convince yourself you were right. So, i'll let you win. I don't want to be responsible for any existential crisis or anything.
Click to expand...

Oh and you say they will get 25 cause the government always gets the good price like how the military gets great deals on wrenches and toilets. Lol
 
kenvin said:
Oh and you say they will get 25 cause the government always gets the good price like how the military gets great deals on wrenches and toilets. Lol
Click to expand...

Two very different things, but don't let that stop you.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
And despite the stereotyping of welfare people, most of them would like to work.
Click to expand...

Based on my purely anectdotal, first hand experience I would disagree. At least in the case of the homeless shelter, very few had any actual mental illness and very few really wanted to work. There were occasional exceptions to that, but really not many.
 
If testing has legal ramifications they should use reliable tests done in a lab not some silly strip from cvs.
Click to expand...

Those silly little strips are pretty damn accurate. What would be wrong with using them. Could easily make it so that if a person comes up hot on the strip they retest them with labcorp or someone like that. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
 
buck said:
Based on my purely anectdotal, first hand experience I would disagree. At least in the case of the homeless shelter, very few had any actual mental illness and very few really wanted to work. There were occasional exceptions to that, but really not many.
Click to expand...

Wait, is your problem with the homeless, or people on welfare?
 
buck said:
Based on my purely anectdotal, first hand experience I would disagree. At least in the case of the homeless shelter, very few had any actual mental illness and very few really wanted to work. There were occasional exceptions to that, but really not many.
Click to expand...
A homeless shelter is a bad example and does not represent the average welfare recipient. Most are just people down on their luck and needed a temporary assistance to get back on their feet. But then culturally one has to figure in that most people with really good job ethics wouldnt be caught dead receiving welfare. I am not saying that they are bad people for receiving assistance just that for some people it is degrading and wrong culturally to go on welfare. Some people indeed have different opinions on the matter.
 
Catawba said:
Wait, is your problem with the homeless, or people on welfare?
Click to expand...

I have zero problem with homeless people. However, even you would acknowledge that homeless people are typically on welfare.
 
Catawba said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

What I said was that it is wrong to test people for drug use without any probable cause involved. One could say that all Americans benefit from taxes so everyone should be tested for drugs. That is where your reasoning leads us. If its good for one section to be tested for drugs then it is good for all sections of society to be tested for drugs. That is the same exact reasoning that you used.
 
If its good for one section to be tested for drugs then it is good for all sections of society to be tested for drugs.
Click to expand...

I would not agree with all sections of society. However, anyone who receives a regular check from the state or government should be regularly tested as a condition of receiving tax dollars for their personal use.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
A homeless shelter is a bad example and does not represent the average welfare recipient. Most are just people down on their luck and needed a temporary assistance to get back on their feet. But then culturally one has to figure in that most people with really good job ethics wouldnt be caught dead receiving welfare. I am not saying that they are bad people for receiving assistance just that for some people it is degrading and wrong culturally to go on welfare. Some people indeed have different opinions on the matter.
Click to expand...

I was incorrect. I would imagine when including short term welfare reciepiets, those just looking for temporary help, you are probably correct and many would like to work. My mind automatically translated it to longer term welfare recipients. Of those that are longer term, I do not believe most, or even many, would like to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom