Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

jambalaya said:

It depends. What incentive do they have now to get clean? Whose to say people who are collecting a welfare check every week aren't panhandling or engaged in prostitution. There is no perfect solution. Your "turn a blind eye and feel good about yourself for giving them a few bucks" solution is problematic.

Click to expand...

Based on the results in Florida, this seems to be another non-problem that Republicans are fixating on to curry favor with their base. Why make everyone who applies for assistance pay for this humiliating test when it appears that it's less of a problem among this population than it is in the population as a whole?

It seems to me that the real problem here is with those who have the biased perception that people who are going through tough times and need some assistance must be drug-addled parasites.

Making public assistance contingent upon being drug-free is never going to happen unless we are also willing to immediately take their children away. You don't let kids go hungry and homeless because mom's a druggie.

MaggieD said:

Making public assistance contingent upon being drug-free is never going to happen unless we are also willing to immediately take their children away. You don't let kids go hungry and homeless because mom's a druggie.

Click to expand...

If the parent is a druggie then wouldn't it be a good idea to take the children away and get the mother some help?

jamesrage said:

If the parent is a druggie then wouldn't it be a good idea to take the children away and get the mother some help?

Click to expand...

That's another topic, and one that would be interesting to discuss. But that doesn't change what I said. Can't have one without the other.

You test positive for marijuana? You lose your benefits and your kids. We'd better start building orphanages.

I have so many issues with this....

1st, what happens when a welfare mother tests positive? do we cut her off, send her out on the street and put the kids in fostercare? Not sure how that is improving any situation.... Or, do we send her to rehab which costs even more money, while the kids are in fostercare, which costs even more money... Not to mention such a horrible way for a kid to grow up...

So now our society is in this paranoid gotcha phase with drug use... except it is everywhere, in all classes. What makes someone who earns a lot of money any less or more acceptable with taking illegal substances?

Why Iam not a libertarian is because of this issue moreso than any other. Lets say we legalize marijuanna... except that currently there is no accurate way to determine when exactly did a person use the drug. Heavy users will test positive days after their last time using. Someone does something completly bone headed behind the wheel, they get drug tested, was not actually high at the time but a drug test determines that it is raging through their system...

I am not pro or anti drug, but very anti how we are going about the entire issue. A lot of feel good legislation that harms more than it hurts, including possible legalization under our current issues with driving and working where such tests are mandatory.

Face it for the bleeding hearts... most of the people who got to where they needed welfare was because of substance abuse one way or another. Sorry but I have been around the block more than once and have had my share of time being poor and around the poor. Many of them have substance abuse problems, and I have been involved with the underpriveledged in more than just one trailer park/ rent subsidied apt complex. I have also spent some time with upper class people and oh no, guess what I found, a lot of them do drugs as well. Oddly enough, they pay less for purer quality... figure that.

Substance abuse has been a part of human culture since we learned how to make or ingest something that alters our consciousness. If we want to deal with the problem for real, we are going to have to change our entire way of going about it. law enforcement, mandatory tests, our way of looking at class warfare on who is good and who is bad because of it.

The REAL issue ISN'T the drug testing, it's the drug laws in general. If I smoke pot, who am I hurting? Now, from the stand point of living or being subsidized by financial aid of some sort, and then spending the extra cash I have as a result on drugs is a valid argument...IF, and only IF, you also wanna test for booze and tobacco, too. Last I checked, those are just as useless to general survival as pot or LSD. While we're at it, we should track their spending...instead of making deposits into an account, issue a an account, accesable ONLY in debit form, no cash. Track everything. Buy only what's "needed" to sustain life. I mean, to me, that's no worse than the premise of drug testing.

MaggieD said:

Making public assistance contingent upon being drug-free is never going to happen unless we are also willing to immediately take their children away. You don't let kids go hungry and homeless because mom's a druggie.

Click to expand...

If Mom smokes pot, there's going to be food in the pantry and fridge.

AdamT said:

Based on the results in Florida, this seems to be another non-problem that Republicans are fixating on to curry favor with their base. Why make everyone who applies for assistance pay for this humiliating test when it appears that it's less of a problem among this population than it is in the population as a whole?

It seems to me that the real problem here is with those who have the biased perception that people who are going through tough times and need some assistance must be drug-addled parasites.

Click to expand...

Certain jobs have random drug testing, pre hiring drug testing. I was subject to testing in my past job. So in your mind its ok for me (who does not use drugs) to be tested, yet it is not ok to have someone receiving tax dollars for welfare. Why is it humiliating for a welfare person, but not for a working person?

IMO, the whole program needs revamped. However, I have no issue with testing.

tessaesque said:

So how is stating something that is true "demonizing" or "attacking"?

Click to expand...

Your article says nothing about people who abuse drugs and alcohol being on welfare or for that matter poor. So yes, you're demonizing. Sorry to break it to you.

Enola said:

I don't understand. Why would the lawmakers have to be drug tested if they are NOT on welfare or taking foodstamps?

Click to expand...

Soldiers are not on foodstamps but are subjected to drug testing, police and fire officers, utility workers, so why not lawmakers!!

American said:

Is there another way to pay them?

Click to expand...

Nope, I think you said it clear there, only more big government, spending more money than it takes in. Maybe the federal government should mandate it across the nation and sell it as a jobs bill.

AdamT said:

Your assumption is a bit ludicrous. You think that a drug addict is going to get clean just to collect a few hundred bucks worth of foot stamps? Suddenly, if she has to take a drug test, she's going to turn into June Cleaver? The more likely scenario is that she instead resorts to petty theft and/or panhandling and/or prostitution.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying at all. If anything, an applicant or recpient who tests positive for drugs should then be subject to massive state intervention on behalf of the children, who are my main focus. Whether they decide to invest that money into rehab or foster care, anything is better for the child than living with a drug-using parent. I could care less what the adult decides to do to themselves, but the children need advocates.

tessaesque said:

That's not what I'm saying at all. If anything, an applicant or recpient who tests positive for drugs should then be subject to massive state intervention on behalf of the children, who are my main focus. Whether they decide to invest that money into rehab or foster care, anything is better for the child than living with a drug-using parent. I could care less what the adult decides to do to themselves, but the children need advocates.

Click to expand...

particularly if it is something that's really bad for the children, like nicotine for example.

tessaesque said:

That's not what I'm saying at all. If anything, an applicant or recpient who tests positive for drugs should then be subject to massive state intervention on behalf of the children, who are my main focus. Whether they decide to invest that money into rehab or foster care, anything is better for the child than living with a drug-using parent. I could care less what the adult decides to do to themselves, but the children need advocates.

Click to expand...

Now its going to even cost more money? wow! where is all this big government money coming from?

tessaesque said:

That's not what I'm saying at all. If anything, an applicant or recpient who tests positive for drugs should then be subject to massive state intervention on behalf of the children, who are my main focus. Whether they decide to invest that money into rehab or foster care, anything is better for the child than living with a drug-using parent. I could care less what the adult decides to do to themselves, but the children need advocates.

Click to expand...

My dad smoke pot. I came out OK, I think. My wife's mother drinks, and her step dad smokes pot every day. She came out OK, too.

Dittohead not! said:

particularly if it is something that's really bad for the children, like nicotine for example.

Click to expand...

ok this is getting way to expensive now, I mean really I don't want my great grandchildren to think I was some leech sucking off them creating all this unfunded debt.

barbarian_style said:

Now its going to even cost more money? wow! where is all this big government money coming from?

Click to expand...

I'd rather spend the money on the children, invest in them and promote healthy growth and development so that they don't perpetuate a cycle of drug abuse, or poverty, or emotional abuse, or any other large number of potential consequences of living with a parent who neglects them due to drug or alcohol dependency/abuse.

tessaesque said:

That's not what I'm saying at all. If anything, an applicant or recpient who tests positive for drugs should then be subject to massive state intervention on behalf of the children, who are my main focus. Whether they decide to invest that money into rehab or foster care, anything is better for the child than living with a drug-using parent. I could care less what the adult decides to do to themselves, but the children need advocates.

Click to expand...

By logical extension, if it's for the children, we should be drug testing EVERY PARENT, regardless of social/financial status. After all, many self-providing people are drug users as well. Hence, the welfare money aspect is moot.

barbarian_style said:

ok this is getting way to expensive now, I mean really I don't want my great grandchildren to think I was some leech sucking off them creating all this unfunded debt.

Click to expand...

The war on drugs really is a liberal, big government sort of program, isn't it?

KevinKohler said:

My dad smoke pot. I came out OK, I think. My wife's mother drinks, and her step dad smokes pot every day. She came out OK, too.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's great for you. But there are still several million children in this country who do not "turn out okay" because of the lack of care they receive due to the dependencies of their parents. Personally? I don't see a lot of harm coming from marijuana use in parents, either. But marijuana isn't the only drug people use. And alcohol isn't always "okay", either. That's why, if a parent using the system to support their family tests positive for drugs of ANY kind, there should be an investigation into the welfare of the children.

barbarian_style said:

ok this is getting way to expensive now, I mean really I don't want my great grandchildren to think I was some leech sucking off them creating all this unfunded debt.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, they are going to. It's going to take GENERATIONS to sort this out, and that's IF we start now, and seriously.

Dittohead not! said:

The war on drugs really is a liberal, big government sort of program, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I just really am not seeing any conservatism in it all.

radcen said:

By logical extension, if it's for the children, we should be drug testing EVERY PARENT, regardless of social/financial status. After all, many self-providing people are drug users as well. Hence, the welfare money aspect is moot.

Click to expand...

The welfare aspect isn't moot. If a parent not on welfare tests positive for drugs in the work place then that work place should report the parent. If a parent on welfare tests positive for drugs then an investigation into the welfare of the child should ensue. Children in poverty have a great need of care and support than children outside of poverty, so if a little bit of government intervention into children known to live in poverty (through the parent's application) helps prevent these children from stagnating then I'm all for it.

tessaesque said:

Yeah, that's great for you. But there are still several million children in this country who do not "turn out okay" because of the lack of care they receive due to the dependencies of their parents. Personally? I don't see a lot of harm coming from marijuana use in parents, either. But marijuana isn't the only drug people use. And alcohol isn't always "okay", either. That's why, if a parent using the system to support their family tests positive for drugs of ANY kind, there should be an investigation into the welfare of the children.

Click to expand...

there should ALWAYS be investigations into people who collect welfare, the drug use facet notwithstanding. homes should be visited routinely.

What makes illegal drugs different or worse than alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine?