If workers in most jobs today are required to take drug tests in order to keep their job (or obtain the job), and those same worker's tax money help pay for welfare, then shouldn't the people drawing that welfare money be required to take a drug test to keep drawing the money. If employees could lose their jobs if tests prove dirty, then the same should happen for those on welfare.

 

 

As far as the argument that such a law would hurt or endanger children, I'm not so sure. If parents are on drugs, then the money is probably not reaching the children anyway. the addicts are spending most of it on drugs. I know of many drug addicted welfare families whose children would be in deep trouble if not for a helping hand from sympathetic (for the children) grandparents and other relatives, school officials, churches, and friends.

If workers in most jobs today are required to take drug tests in order to keep their job (or obtain the job), and those same worker's tax money help pay for welfare, then shouldn't the people drawing that welfare money be required to take a drug test to keep drawing the money. If employees could lose their jobs if tests prove dirty, then the same should happen for those on welfare.

 

As far as the argument that such a law would hurt or endanger children, I'm not so sure. If parents are on drugs, then the money is probably not reaching the children anyway. the addicts are spending most of it on drugs. I know of many drug addicted welfare families whose children would be in deep trouble if not for a helping hand from sympathetic (for the children) grandparents and other relatives, school officials, churches, and friends.

 

You make a good argument. :thumb:

If workers in most jobs today are required to take drug tests in order to keep their job (or obtain the job), and those same worker's tax money help pay for welfare, then shouldn't the people drawing that welfare money be required to take a drug test to keep drawing the money. If employees could lose their jobs if tests prove dirty, then the same should happen for those on welfare.

 

 

As far as the argument that such a law would hurt or endanger children, I'm not so sure. If parents are on drugs, then the money is probably not reaching the children anyway. the addicts are spending most of it on drugs. I know of many drug addicted welfare families whose children would be in deep trouble if not for a helping hand from sympathetic (for the children) grandparents and other relatives, school officials, churches, and friends.

 

"Tommy likey"... :thumb::thumb:

This piece of legislation is another example of how Republicans in this country have moved away from being conservative.

 

This is Big Brother at its finest and most active.

 

Drug tests costs a lot of money and are absolutely fraught with mistake and rife with the potential for fraud.

 

Most of what we call the "welfare" program, as it currently exists, is administered statewide by the Cabinet for Families and Children. When folks sign up, they will notice in the fine print that they are subject to random requests for information including drug testing. If they accept Passport medical care they give up the right to privacy of their medical information, as it concerns the government.

 

If there is an individualized suspicion of drug usage by a recipient, then they can already be tested. This legislation is nothing more than a PR stunt to rally people who are generally opposed to welfare to battle cry against it. If this legislator had any guts at all, he simply would propose scrapping or scaling back welfare benefits.

What happens to the recipients who test positive and are removed from welfare? I'm no more in favor of supporting drug abusers than anyone else, but these people will no doubt become homeless, living on the street or in shelters, and coming up with "creative" ways to replaced the money that supports their addiction.

 

On the other hand, if we're discussing the casual pot user blowing our tax dollars on a cheap high, then this would be a deterrent.

 

Side note to my fellow Eastern Kentuckians. When you hear of someone being "on the street" in our area, do you invision someone standing out on a dark, gravel road in the woods as I do?:lol: We just don't have a lot of city streets.

This piece of legislation is another example of how Republicans in this country have moved away from being conservative.

 

This is Big Brother at its finest and most active.

 

Drug tests costs a lot of money and are absolutely fraught with mistake and rife with the potential for fraud.

 

Most of what we call the "welfare" program, as it currently exists, is administered statewide by the Cabinet for Families and Children. When folks sign up, they will notice in the fine print that they are subject to random requests for information including drug testing. If they accept Passport medical care they give up the right to privacy of their medical information, as it concerns the government.

 

If there is an individualized suspicion of drug usage by a recipient, then they can already be tested. This legislation is nothing more than a PR stunt to rally people who are generally opposed to welfare to battle cry against it. If this legislator had any guts at all, he simply would propose scrapping or scaling back welfare benefits.

 

I agree with the bolded. It's out of hand as is, and the fraud and deception is ridiculous.

[/b]

This piece of legislation is another example of how Republicans in this country have moved away from being conservative.

 

This is Big Brother at its finest and most active.

 

Drug tests costs a lot of money and are absolutely fraught with mistake and rife with the potential for fraud.

 

Most of what we call the "welfare" program, as it currently exists, is administered statewide by the Cabinet for Families and Children. When folks sign up, they will notice in the fine print that they are subject to random requests for information including drug testing. If they accept Passport medical care they give up the right to privacy of their medical information, as it concerns the government.

 

If there is an individualized suspicion of drug usage by a recipient, then they can already be tested. This legislation is nothing more than a PR stunt to rally people who are generally opposed to welfare to battle cry against it. If this legislator had any guts at all, he simply would propose scrapping or scaling back welfare benefits.

 

 

I see your point BUT...If I fail a drug test,then I am fired from my job. Since my job is in the medical field,then I lose my livelihood forever..I can no longer pay my bills,so I lose my home. Therefore I am on the street....what is the difference?

I like this idea but the only problem I see in it is the kids it would hurt. Unfortunately if you take certain people's welfare money away the ones who will suffer the worst are the children of those people.

This piece of legislation is another example of how Republicans in this country have moved away from being conservative.

 

This is Big Brother at its finest and most active.

 

Drug tests costs a lot of money and are absolutely fraught with mistake and rife with the potential for fraud.

 

Most of what we call the "welfare" program, as it currently exists, is administered statewide by the Cabinet for Families and Children. When folks sign up, they will notice in the fine print that they are subject to random requests for information including drug testing. If they accept Passport medical care they give up the right to privacy of their medical information, as it concerns the government.

 

If there is an individualized suspicion of drug usage by a recipient, then they can already be tested. This legislation is nothing more than a PR stunt to rally people who are generally opposed to welfare to battle cry against it. If this legislator had any guts at all, he simply would propose scrapping or scaling back welfare benefits.

 

 

:thumb:

I like this idea but the only problem I see in it is the kids it would hurt. Unfortunately if you take certain people's welfare money away the ones who will suffer the worst are the children of those people.

See post #16, second paragraph. More than likely the children will suffer anyway, regardless of whether the welfare is continued or stopped.

I think that before anyone is allowed to post on BGP that they should be tested for drugs:ylsuper:

I think it is a great idea. It is the responsibility of workers to get tested if asked, why not in this situation? Many people who need help are not getting it...seriously. These are usually the honest people who, have worked, and now are being denied. So, this being said, I am not proud to let you all know that I have two cousins who have never worked a day in their lives (one is 36 with 3 children, who, has just gotten out of jail for the third time for using and selling. He, after getting out of jail, is being supported, yet again...oh, and has housing for him...not his girlfriend or their children...she actually works to support them. And, another cousin who is 43. She has never worked and has 5 children. She stays strung out and is a horrible parent.) Two aunts who have never worked and are using. Heck, they sell thier food stamps...and no, my two cousins do not belong to these two aunts.....and one uncle...same thing with him...never worked, stays high.)

 

They all live in Washington State, as my parents and brother do. My parents have tried to be supportive, have tried "tough love" and turned them in....nothing happens. The food stamps and money does not go to the children anyway, they eat horrible. The State knows about it and keeps giving warnings and that is it. Yes, the children suffer if the money is not coming in...however, they are suffering now. PH and I have offered to take custody of the children and the parents don't want to let go of them. The State will not remove them....So, yes, drug test, then, follow up with the laws and enforce them...take them off of money until they are drug free, and for crying petes sake, take the children!!!!

DRUG TEST THEM!!

 

Under current regulations, an adult on welfare can only receive benefits for up to 5 years and that is IF they participate in training, education or similar program. Females can receive a one time (up to 12 months during their lifetime) exclusion while they provide care for a child. The children can continue to receive benefits until they turn 18. If the adults responsible for these children were drug tested and received a positive result, their children would not necessarily be removed immediately. It partly depends upon their "drug of choice" and usage amounts present during testing as well as their history with social services. If Either way, ongoing random drug testing would be conducted.

 

From a financial perspective, the cost of KTAP (welfare) for a parent and child, along with food stamp benefits and medical coverage would just about equal out to the foster care payments paid out by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Each has its own funding source filtered through the federal government. the children are removed, social services would look first to family members for placement which minimizes the the trauma to the children and maintains the family bonds.

This piece of legislation is another example of how Republicans in this country have moved away from being conservative.

 

This is Big Brother at its finest and most active.

 

Drug tests costs a lot of money and are absolutely fraught with mistake and rife with the potential for fraud.

 

Most of what we call the "welfare" program, as it currently exists, is administered statewide by the Cabinet for Families and Children. When folks sign up, they will notice in the fine print that they are subject to random requests for information including drug testing. If they accept Passport medical care they give up the right to privacy of their medical information, as it concerns the government.

 

If there is an individualized suspicion of drug usage by a recipient, then they can already be tested. This legislation is nothing more than a PR stunt to rally people who are generally opposed to welfare to battle cry against it. If this legislator had any guts at all, he simply would propose scrapping or scaling back welfare benefits.

 

Finally a voice of reason from a forest of "There's nothing wrong with the goverment watching us. Are we granted freedom from illegal search in the constitution?Yes. Is checking my bodily fluids an illegal search?Yes. Is drug testing at least 95% accurate?No. Would you like to lose money or benefits for something done illegally to you and for something you didn't do?NO

I agree with the bolded. It's out of hand as is, and the fraud and deception is ridiculous.

 

Do you have any actual facts to back that up?