• 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!

98 Percent of Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test

Instead of wasting even more money on drug testing, just eliminate welfare.

End of story!

Agreed.

Start with the Farm Corps and Wall Street. Then cut all tax breaks for the super-rich.
 
I would like to test all TeaBrains receiving medicare for liver functions. A full panel. If they are drinking and/or smoking, I say we cut off their blood pressure, heart, and diabetes meds.
I agree, they should be put through the same psychological and medical tests that you have to take. Everyone should get free medical care, right?
 
Last edited:
98 Percent of Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test



So much for that myth. Thanks for wasting money on hysteria over something that is barely a problem.

Many of the alleged "leeches" on welfare now are the people who, until 2 years ago, were part of a functional work force and were productive contributors to economy. Now their lives are in chaos, their investments for the future are disintegrating before their eyes, and they are reduced to lesser prosperity. So... let's kick them while they're down and imply that they're drug abusers as well!

so much BS. if you know you are going to be tested...it is easy to pass. Crack/cocaine, the drug of choice for many deadbeats, only stays in your system at detectable levels for 72 hours. DHR is a govt agency, and as such if horribly inefficient. if FL runs their program anything like AL does, the people know at least a week in advance when they are going to be tested.

When we were doing foster care, one of the mothers was a crackhead, she knew that every Thursday afternoon she was going to get tested. So she would stop smoking crack early Monday morning and by thursday she was clean. She got caught only because I just happened to see her sitting in the DHR parking lot one thursday after her weekly test/visit smoking the pipe and I ratted her out.
 
so much BS. if you know you are going to be tested...it is easy to pass. Crack/cocaine, the drug of choice for many deadbeats, only stays in your system at detectable levels for 72 hours. DHR is a govt agency, and as such if horribly inefficient. if FL runs their program anything like AL does, the people know at least a week in advance when they are going to be tested.

When we were doing foster care, one of the mothers was a crackhead, she knew that every Thursday afternoon she was going to get tested. So she would stop smoking crack early Monday morning and by thursday she was clean. She got caught only because I just happened to see her sitting in the DHR parking lot one thursday after her weekly test/visit smoking the pipe and I ratted her out.

Cocaine is a little expensive for deadbeats, at least in non crack form.
 
Someone needs to check their math Using the figures in this article there is no way the cost of drug testing 1500 (top end...the article suggests 1000-1500) at $30 a pop, thats an outside max of 540,000 in costs for the tests, not $178 million. The $178 million figure is the total cost of the welfare program. Once the program is in place they should simply conduct random unannounced tests. Most folks can clean up for three days for their months worth of free cheese.

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results | TBO.com
 
The key word here is "applicants" if new applicants are not testing positive for drugs the law is working by keeping druggies from applying and swelling welfare rolls. My question is why isn't everyone on welfare rolls being tested, applicants and old timers alike? That may create some different results and actually shrink welfare rolls. I think libs careful focus on the word applicant skews the stats.
 
The key word here is "applicants" if new applicants are not testing positive for drugs the law is working by keeping druggies from applying and swelling welfare rolls. My question is why isn't everyone on welfare rolls being tested, applicants and old timers alike? That may create some different results and actually shrink welfare rolls. I think libs careful focus on the word applicant skews the stats.

Yeah you're right, and I missed that. It also ties into the point I made early on: if you know you're going to be tested, it's easy to beat the system.

When they give random drug tests to all collecting welfare - new applicants and long-time recipients - and 98% pass then I'll give them a thumbs-up. Until then...
 
The key word here is "applicants" if new applicants are not testing positive for drugs the law is working by keeping druggies from applying and swelling welfare rolls. My question is why isn't everyone on welfare rolls being tested, applicants and old timers alike? That may create some different results and actually shrink welfare rolls. I think libs careful focus on the word applicant skews the stats.
I dont think the intent of the law should be to keep people from getting help. It should be to help people get help that need it, to help people asses priorities, and to identify those that need further help getting clean as a part of building a path to a better future. I support the drug testing as a means of helping people reach a point of self sufficiency, not soleley as a means of punshing drug addicted persons.
 
I dont think the intent of the law should be to keep people from getting help. It should be to help people get help that need it, to help people asses priorities, and to identify those that need further help getting clean as a part of building a path to a better future. I support the drug testing as a means of helping people reach a point of self sufficiency, not soleley as a means of punshing drug addicted persons.

I agree with your rationale to some extent but at the end of the day I ask myself, do I really want the government taking money out of my hard-earned paycheck to give to someone so they could buy food, which they could have bought in the first place if they didn't spend it on _______ (insert drug of choice here)?

I understand that addiction is a very powerful thing, however I know from experience that people will use the "power of addiction" as an excuse for being too lazy, too self absorbed to wake up and smell the coffee and take control of their own life.
 
Last edited:
Cocaine is a little expensive for deadbeats, at least in non crack form.

which is why they all smoke crack. cheap and easy to get. and, as I said, easy to beat a drug test that you know is coming. not like weed that is detectable in your system for weeks.
 
It would be nice to just systematically eliminate welfare and just increase the amount of shelters or halfway houses or whatever you call them. If you're that poor and hungry, you get a small room (maybe to yourself, or if not with a roommate or two), food, maybe some job training or assistance with other things like clothes and what-not. Just essentially limit it to "three hots and a cot". Then you don't have to worry about abuse of the system or direct funds - at least not as much.

At that point, then you can tell who the genuine ones are. I'm sure there are tons of homeless people who would love to have a roof over their heads and a few warm meals anyday. The handout crowd and the addicted, not so much. Sifting achieved.
 
which is why they all smoke crack. cheap and easy to get. and, as I said, easy to beat a drug test that you know is coming. not like weed that is detectable in your system for weeks.
We dont have tests for some of the new **** that they are using now. Bath salts...formaldehyde...geeeezus...

Just legalize pot already...
 
Because if they can afford that crap then they don't need to be collecting welfare! If they're honestly stupid enough to spend their money on drugs when they need to buy food then I have no sympathy for them if they starve.

Last I checked, a dime bag is waaaayyy cheaper than a college degree, or medical insurance, or any one of the many things that welfare recipients don't have. Besides, do you think it's right to inventory every single expenditure of a welfare recipient? Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? Must they only purchase the cheaper brands of food, even if they don't taste as good? Must they get the fattier burgers, because they're a little cheaper? So, it's okay for government to be all up in someone else's life, but not yours, because your job pays a living wage, and theirs doesn't...

Someone needs to check their math Using the figures in this article there is no way the cost of drug testing 1500 (top end...the article suggests 1000-1500) at $30 a pop, thats an outside max of 540,000 in costs for the tests, not $178 million. The $178 million figure is the total cost of the welfare program. Once the program is in place they should simply conduct random unannounced tests. Most folks can clean up for three days for their months worth of free cheese.

Totally in agreement here. Clearly the bill of rights doesn't include poor people. That's the price they pay for being shown a little compassion. If we have to take on the burden of saving them from starvation, then they shouldn't be able to have basic civil rights. This is America, folks, where you're only a citizen if you make at least 30k a year.
 
I agree with your rationale to some extent but at the end of the day I ask myself, do I really want the government taking money out of my hard-earned paycheck to give to someone so they could buy food, which they could have bought in the first place if they didn't spend it on _______ (insert drug of choice here)?

I understand that addiction is a very powerful thing, however I know from experience that people will use the "power of addiction" as an excuse for being too lazy, too self absorbed to wake up and smell the coffee and take control of their own life.
I agree. However cutting off addicts because they use (hey...guess what addicts do...) only ensures they will continue to be addicts. Now, take them off the welfare roles and DONT get them additional help. Guess how much they are going to cost you? I guarantee it will be a helluva lot more. A single ER visit will more than dwarf your monthly medicare cost. A hospitalization will fully absorb your annual welfare costs. Im not suggesting you let them continue...Im saying use the program, identify who needs help, then attempt to get them help. If they dont take advantage of it, then you cut them off, or adjust services.
 
Last I checked, a dime bag is waaaayyy cheaper than a college degree, or medical insurance, or any one of the many things that welfare recipients don't have. Besides, do you think it's right to inventory every single expenditure of a welfare recipient? Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? Must they only purchase the cheaper brands of food, even if they don't taste as good? Must they get the fattier burgers, because they're a little cheaper? So, it's okay for government to be all up in someone else's life, but not yours, because your job pays a living wage, and theirs doesn't...



Totally in agreement here. Clearly the bill of rights doesn't include poor people. That's the price they pay for being shown a little compassion. If we have to take on the burden of saving them from starvation, then they shouldn't be able to have basic civil rights. This is America, folks, where you're only a citizen if you make at least 30k a year.
Where does the Bill of Rights state the federal government should be responsible to pay for individual citizens? Or for that matter the states (since we are discussing state programs)?
 
Totally in agreement here. Clearly the bill of rights doesn't include poor people. That's the price they pay for being shown a little compassion. If we have to take on the burden of saving them from starvation, then they shouldn't be able to have basic civil rights. This is America, folks, where you're only a citizen if you make at least 30k a year.

wow, didn't realize that the "right" to use illegal drugs was part of the bill of rights. remind me...what number is that again?

if you are dependent on the charity or others for your survival, then you have to accept any limitations they put on said charity. you don't like it??? don't accept the check :shrug:

every winter in my area there are at least a couple of winos/bums who freeze to death under a bridge somewhere because they would rather drink/do drugs than give them up for a bed in a shelter. hard to feel much sympathy for someone who chooses drugs over life.
 
Last edited:
Where does the Bill of Rights state the federal government should be responsible to pay for individual citizens? Or for that matter the states (since we are discussing state programs)?

Personal privacy... I didn't think you needed it spelled out to you. Random drug tests violate several amendments, most notably the fourth and ninth. But you don't seem to think that matters.

Edit: And fourteenth.
 
Last edited:
wow, didn't realize that the "right" to use illegal drugs was part of the bill of rights. remind me...what number is that again?

if you are dependent on the charity or others for your survival, then you have to accept any limitations they put on said charity. you don't like it??? don't accept the check :shrug:

every winter in my area there are at least a couple of winos/bums who freeze to death under a bridge somewhere because they would rather drink/do drugs than give them up for a bed in a shelter. hard to feel much sympathy for someone who chooses drugs over life.
I think maybe he realizes he was just talking out of his ass again...unless he has some mystery version of the BoR that include Mandatory State Welfare Payments.
 
Personal privacy... I didn't think you needed it spelled out to you. Random drug tests violate several amendments, most notably the fourth and ninth. But you don't seem to think that matters.
Right to privacy is all good...until you decide you want to partake of someones programs. Does your employer have a right to conduct drug tests? And you think drug tests just impact the poor? What world do you live in?

i guess you missed the part where I stated the intent should not be to punish individuals but rather to identify those that require different/greater need. Yes...because Im an evil greedy bastard.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but it's a start. I don't see anyone putting up proof to the paranoid claims that welfare recipients are mostly abusing the system. It's all speculation. At least this is an actual attempt at verification. It's not surprise to me that the results are not very dramatic. Too bad FA had to spend so much money on it.

Personal experience thus far has taught me the opposite, although I don't limit my definition of welfare to just direct cash payments.
To me, it also includes food stamps, medicaid, etc.

In many cases, the mother of children gets the food stamps in her name, while the father also benefits but is not listed on the form as an income earner.
 
Why is it so important that unemployed people don't get high in their spare time? They have serious problems. They need something to make it easier. Why is it so important to deny them some pleasure?

They're supposed to be so broke that they can't afford those things.
They kind of attest to that by getting on social aid programs in the first place.
It's a form of fraud.
 
Paschendale said:
Last I checked, a dime bag is waaaayyy cheaper than a college degree, or medical insurance, or any one of the many things that welfare recipients don't have. Besides, do you think it's right to inventory every single expenditure of a welfare recipient? Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? Must they only purchase the cheaper brands of food, even if they don't taste as good? Must they get the fattier burgers, because they're a little cheaper? So, it's okay for government to be all up in someone else's life, but not yours, because your job pays a living wage, and theirs doesn't...

Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? No. Are they suddenly not allowed to spend my money? Yes, they're not allowed.

I'm sorry that socialism subsidizes irresponsibility and economic inefficiency. Tell you what - if you want to create your own feel-good private charity and hand out joints at the local street corner on your own dime, knock yourself out. I won't attempt to stop you for one minute.

That's the fun with liberals - they're experts on how to spend other people's money.
 
Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? No. Are they suddenly not allowed to spend my money? Yes, they're not allowed.

I'm sorry that socialism subsidizes irresponsibility and economic inefficiency. Tell you what - if you want to create your own feel-good private charity and hand out joints at the local street corner on your own dime, knock yourself out. I won't attempt to stop you for one minute.

That's the fun with liberals - they're experts on how to spend other people's money.

It's not just liberals. Conservatives spend money too. Conservatives have contributed to the deficit, and I'd guess, they have contributed more to the deficit than liberals have.
 
Quite possible. Feel free to look it up.

I never said conservatives were innocent, but I'd rather see my tax dollars spent bombing some third-world nation for oil interests than giving money to an irresponsible person to use irresponsibly. But hey, I'm kooky like that.

I would be willing to wager that "conservatives" don't rack up unnecessary debt as much as liberals. Not that I classify him as such, but the most recent anecdotal evidence would be Bush. Want to compare him to Obama for 2 minutes? I bet I come out on top.
 
Back
Top Bottom