Drug Testing for Welfare? Bad Idea?

[LIPTON BASH]

I have two problems with drug testing for aid:

 

1) Joe Blow is employed and enjoys recreational drug use. Joe comes into work and is informed he is laid off. Joe comes to the conclusion that he has to give up his drug use in order to receive unemployment till he finds another job. The problem is, some of the drugs in Joe's system will take a while to get out of his system so he and his family are out of luck until his system cleans itself out. Is the drug testing in Utah and Florida able to tell when the last time someone has used a drug? My guess is no.

 

2) While you may not feel much sympathy for Joe, what about Joe Jr. and any other kids? They are innocent of dad's drug use but will suffer. I have heard some suggest if the welfare denied parents cannot take care of them, then they should go to foster care till the parents are welfare eligible or employed. I do not agree with this suggestion.

 

Joe made his bed now he has to lay in it.

 

I've stated on here many times I'm against he war on drugs. But if drugs are illegal and private companies have testing , then people who recieve benefits from the tax payers should have to pass a similar test. I don't care if there is only one person caught a year. No person should be able to use the welfare system and take drugs.

 

I'm tired of the excuse of what about the kids. If his own father doesn't care enough why should my pocket book be hurt.

[LIPTON BASH]

I've never been a drug user of any kind, so I have little to no sympathy for those that choose to put themselves in Mr. Blow's position. More than likely he is going to have to be clean to get another job anyway, so having to be clean for welfare is a moot point, IMO.

 

Very good point.

[LIPTON BASH]

Absolutely! The condition that returning to drug use would immediately suspend benefits would have to be part of the equation. My big thing is if someone is using and they are paying for it on their own dime, I dont' get too bent up about it. When they are doing it on others taxes, that ticks me off.

 

I guess I just always assumed you leaned similar to Rockmom but oh no, I was wrong. Lol. I fully expect an retort from Rocky soon. Lol

 

Agreed you do it on your own time and on your own dime. It's none of my business. You use taxpayer funded money its now my business.

[Twotoplace]

Corporate welfare is a myth. It would suggest they are getting hand outs. Getting to keep more of your own money isn't welfare, it's call the American way.

 

But at most corporations the higher up the ladder you go the more likely it is you will be tested. I see no reason why people getting hand outs with tax payer money should not be forced to be tested.

Last figures I saw showed the U.S. spent about $59 billion on social welfare programs, $92 billion on corporate subsidies. Fossil fuel industries alone got more than $70 billion in subsidies. And remember, poor Exxon only earned $9.5 billion in the first quarter of 2013.

[Twotoplace]

A problem with the ignore feature is that it doesn't work when people reply with quotes. :no:

The conundrum for the GOP is to drug-test poor people but somehow avoid drug-testing for those solid libertarians who vote straight Republican but like to smoke dope.

[LIPTON BASH]

Last figures I saw showed the U.S. spent about $59 billion on social welfare programs, $92 billion on corporate subsidies. Fossil fuel industries alone got more than $70 billion in subsidies. And remember, poor Exxon only earned $9.5 billion in the first quarter of 2013.

 

Do you understand the difference between corporations being able to keep their own many and social welfare programs where money is redistributed from one persons pocket to benefit another.

 

Corporations do not recieve welfare they generate more tax revenue than they ever recieve from the government. If you are receving social welfare chances are you are recieving much more in tax benefits than you pay into the system.

 

I don't want to insult you or get in trouble. But I suggest you read a book.

[TheDeuce]

If it saves money and keeps a user from getting a handout, I'm all for it.

 

I would much rather see our government spend money on limiting what you can purchase with the benefits though. 2 red bulls and a snickers bar have no nutritional value and should not be allowed to be purchased with any type of assistance.

 

I like this too. Certain things shouldn't be able to be purchased with welfare.

[Bert]

Agreed you do it on your own time and on your own dime. It's none of my business. You use taxpayer funded money its now my business.

 

And I get back to, if Joe accepts responsibililty that he needs to stop and realizes gov aid needs to be used for food, shelter, clothing and just surviving not for fun, I don't see the problem. The problem now is, it will take some time for his system to clean up.

 

"I'm tired of the excuse of what about the kids. If his own father doesn't care enough why should my pocket book be hurt."

 

Because we are a civilized society that is the wealthiest nation on earth and don't think our kids should be living on the streets or in shelters if we can prevent it? I would hope America is a nation that can take care of its most vulnerable. Unfortunately in 1973 we decided to abandon the welfare of our truly most vulnerable (the unborn) but I would hope we could take care of those who survived in the womb long enough to make it on the outside but are still unable to care for themselves. Are you ProLife? If so, when the day comes that RvsW is overturned, the demands on welfare, other social services and eventually prisons will go through the roof.

 

A child raised in dire poverty (true poverty, not how our government defines it) is very likely to spend much of its adult live in prison. The amount spend on a child to keep him or her above dire poverty is pennies compared to the amount spent on the court system, prisons, rehabiltiation, etc. during the kids adult life. I did some work for Bellewood Homes for Children and the backgrounds on many of the kids they treated were almost mirror images of repeat felons. Despite that, Bellewood kids graduation rate approached 90% and very few commit felonies per the data the state provides. I would say that is tax dollars well spent.

[LIPTON BASH]

For the record one poster today has called a majority of the board either racists and/or class elitist, and now a majority of Libertarians drug users.

[Bert]

The conundrum for the GOP is to drug-test poor people but somehow avoid drug-testing for those solid libertarians who vote straight Republican but like to smoke dope.

 

So long as the dope is being paid for out of their pocket, I don't think most people really care. Now, if the dope is being paid for with a welfare check, I would say most people care. Do you not agree?

[Twotoplace]

Do you understand the difference between corporations being able to keep their own many and social welfare programs where money is redistributed from one persons pocket to benefit another.

 

Corporations do not recieve welfare they generate more tax revenue than they ever recieve from the government. If you are receving social welfare chances are you are recieving much more in tax benefits than you pay into the system.

 

I don't want to insult you or get in trouble. But I suggest you read a book.

You can slice it and dice it any way you want, but a subsidy is a subsidy -- whether the recipient is on welfare or Dick Cheney at Halliburton.

[Bert]

I've never been a drug user of any kind, so I have little to no sympathy for those that choose to put themselves in Mr. Blow's position. More than likely he is going to have to be clean to get another job anyway, so having to be clean for welfare is a moot point, IMO.

 

Not at many of the places I have worked, LOL. I am amazed how many places will have one thing in the employee handbook but so long as it does not affect the job, don't care what you do when you leave for the day and therefore not test upon starting the job.

[LIPTON BASH]

And I get back to, if Joe accepts responsibililty that he needs to stop and realizes gov aid needs to be used for food, shelter, clothing and just surviving not for fun, I don't see the problem. The problem now is, it will take some time for his system to clean up.

 

"I'm tired of the excuse of what about the kids. If his own father doesn't care enough why should my pocket book be hurt."

 

Because we are a civilized society that is the wealthiest nation on earth and don't think our kids should be living on the streets or in shelters if we can prevent it? I would hope America is a nation that can take care of its most vulnerable. Unfortunately in 1973 we decided to abandon the welfare of our truly most vulnerable (the unborn) but I would hope we could take care of those who survived in the womb long enough to make it on the outside but are still unable to care for themselves. Are you ProLife? If so, when the day comes that RvsW is overturned, the demands on welfare, other social services and eventually prisons will go through the roof.

 

A child raised in dire poverty (true poverty, not how our government defines it) is very likely to spend much of its adult live in prison. The amount spend on a child to keep him or her above dire poverty is pennies compared to the amount spent on the court system, prisons, rehabiltiation, etc. during the kids adult life.

 

I'm all for helping those who can't help themseleves i.e. kids or the elderly. Let's not act like drugs stay in your system to long . I don't think you should be rewarded for bad decision making. I think you should be able to retest and reapply. But if you fail the test I see no reason to get you benefits. If that means you can not support your kid then maybe they should be moved to a different enviroment.

 

At the end of the day the only person who can be blamed is the person who broke the law. Now in a perfect world the law wouldn't exist as currently written.

 

It all goes back to personal responsibility. I understand we are a civilized society and a wealthy one at that. But there are laws and we can't let people abuse them. If we don't think certain drugs deserves equal punishment then lets first fight those laws.

[LIPTON BASH]

You can slice it and dice it any way you want, but a subsidy is a subsidy -- whether the recipient is on welfare or Dick Cheney at Halliburton.

 

Ignore my post. It is your best bet.

[JokersWild24]

Pretty common knowledge that in Eastern Kentucky, a large number of welfare recipients will take their food stamps and buy tons of groceries with it that they then re-sell for a fraction of the cost. Between that, selling their cards for a fraction of the cost, or other similar abuses, it isn't like their kids are getting the resources intended for them.