Drug Testing for welfare

[steve74baywin]

Here is a few thoughts.
I wonder if welfare pays for more then the persons basic housing and heating needs? Even if it doesn't many people spend the money on other things like drugs, booze, and maybe porn, video games and movies.
Let's say they did test for alcohol also.
If I invite my neighbor over for a cook-out and show him the keg of beer, I guess he couldn't have any beer if he has to pee for his welfare.
In others words it is an assumption that they bought the beer with welfare money, maybe a friend brought the beers over, or got them high. I suppose someone could still say they need to be more serious about improving themselves.
And another thought, not all people getting welfare have been on it for life, maybe this person paid into it for 15 years, and maybe both of her parents paid into it for 50 years, now she has to abstain from things just to get some of it back.

It would seem to make sense to screen people better, not just pee test. But, now we are talking yet an even bigger bureaucracy. These things should be on a local level, then people would know who the sloths were. And, I think history or whatever would show that more people would get themselves out of these hard times if they had to be accountable, or get the help from their closest peers. This hands off, distant welfare system makes it real easy for someone to collect the money while putting forth no effort to get out of that situation, and it makes it easier for them to have no guilt. It foster no accountability.

[ruckman101]

If you test positive, they deny you an opportunity to apply again for six months the first positive, longer for a second, so yes, you can be denied the assistance you are eligible for with a positive test result. However, because of the great concern for the children involved, someone can name a relative or friend to collect the assistance for the family.
neal

Interesting - I wasn't aware ... I would think the kind, humane thing (and the best for society as a whole) to do would be to to require rehab (yes, supplied by the state), etc if they wanted financial assistance.

Cheers,
Mike

Rehab is on your dime, so is the cost of the test if you fail, otherwise you're reimbursed. And I can't see it being anything but an additional cost for the state to administer.


neal

[Velokid1]

In the case of marijuana, it just seems like requiring rehab would be yet another waste of money. Rehab for marijuana is a little putting a band-aid on a headache. Mandated rehab shouldn't be based on what chemicals are in your blood; rehab addresses addiction, so it should be based on actual addiction.

[static]

over-caffeinated post removed for civility.

[ruckman101]

It's but one aspect of the multi-fronted war on the poor and working class of this nation. My suspicion is that these laws came straight from the American Legislative Exchange Council.


neal

[RussellK]

I thought they were in favor of smaller, less intrusive government.

[Velokid1]

Nah- they dont mind when it intrudes on the lives of people they don't like.

[steve74baywin]

Here is a few thoughts.

I wonder if welfare pays for more then the persons basic housing and heating needs? Even if it doesn't many people spend the money on other things like drugs, booze, and maybe porn, video games and movies.

And you know this how? What money? You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

Not sure I KNOW this, but do you know other wise? It would seem to me some may and some may not. I think someone would be a fool to think it is entirely one way or another. If your saying no one spends the money on anything other than what they are suppose to, then I have to wonder what this bill is about. And, if you look closely, I did ask a question showing that I do not know all the details of wellfare. Can you read? Or are you intentionally trying to be rude and ignorant?

Let's say they did test for alcohol also.
If I invite my neighbor over for a cook-out and show him the keg of beer, I guess he couldn't have any beer if he has to pee for his welfare.
In others words it is an assumption that they bought the beer with welfare money, maybe a friend brought the beers over, or got them high. I suppose someone could still say they need to be more serious about improving themselves.

And another thought, not all people getting welfare have been on it for life, maybe this person paid into it for 15 years, and maybe both of her parents paid into it for 50 years, now she has to abstain from things just to get some of it back.

Paid into it? Where did you get the idea that people "pay into" welfare? Where? This utter goofiness has Rush Limbaugh written all over it.

So where does the money come from for welfare? Santa Clause. This has the goofiness of someone who believes in fairy tales.

It would seem to make sense to screen people better, not just pee test.

What part of the "pee test" is unreliable? Are you referring to how meth and cocaine are undetectable after a few days, but marijuana is easily detectable for 30? Or that someone might excrete alcohol before the test?

I did not say the pee test was unreliable, but that it would make sense to "screen people better", better as in for more than drugs. Like to see what is the reason they are in need of welfare. Maybe there is some other underlining issue that is causing them to need welfare or drugs.

But, now we are talking yet an even bigger bureaucracy. These things should be on a local level, then people would know who the sloths were.

Tried that, failed miserably. While Governor, Ronald Reagan closed the California State Hospitals with precisely this excuse, and then removed their funding. Now there are "street crazies" wandering the streets; aimless prey for street criminals.

Doesn't prove anything, it didn't go far enough.

And, I think history or whatever would show that more people would get themselves out of these hard times if they had to be accountable, or get the help from their closest peers.

Which group comprises the bulk of people on Welfare? Answer: children. Effectively, you hope to punish the children of poor people. Way to go, Man!

How do I hope to punish them? Your responses to what I state show a major inability to comprehend. You clearly do not know how I stand. What is it you think I want to do?

This hands off, distant welfare system makes it real easy for someone to collect the money while putting forth no effort to get out of that situation,

Is this your fabulous , well-thought-out conclusion? That State run (distant? WTF?) welfare makes it easy? I ask again. HOW IN HELL DO YOU KNOW THIS? Have you applied? Have you filled out the forms? Or is this what you "have heard" from friends and on the radio?

I do not listen to the radio. It looks like just because I questioned a few things you think I am something I am not. These radio characters you think I listen to I actually dislike and disagree with much of what they have to say.
I use my common sense and intelligence. If someone had to receive help from their nearest peers and people who are near to them, they would have to be more accountable. My thoughts on this come from my OWN thinking. Just the opposite of what you accuse me of. You accuse me of listening to jackies on the right, but it looks like you may listen to jackies on the left and you just repeat what they say. I listen to neither jackies on the left or right, I think for myself. This seems to be throwing you way off. You apparently are use to only talking to people who parrot info. You are thrown off guard by someone who thinks for himself, this is apparent by all your responses that seem to show a major lack of understanding in what I was saying, and assumption that is sometimes the exact opposite of my belief's.

and it makes it easier for them to have no guilt. It foster no accountability.

Oh, so you're telepathic. Oh, I see.

Wow, this is amazing. You first imply that I'm just listening to some radio dudes and I don't think for myself. When I come up with something that is comprised of thought, something I have thought of, you think I must be telepathic. This implies to me that you are not use to someone thinking for themselves, you are only use to people who repeat stuff on the radio. Maybe you assume this and think this in others because it is exactly what you do.

I am going to repeat a few things here.
You have assumed my position to be something other than it is.
I brought up things, came up with thoughts and brought them up here to add to the discussion. And many times I started the sentence off eluding to such, that I was pondering something, like "what if" "I wonder" "Let's say" etc, in those cases Static where I was adding to the debate, you took it as if I held some extreme Rush position. You have accused me of parroting people I dislike, don't listen too, and disagree with much of what they say, and when I have said something that is a thought of my own, something I came up with perhaps while engaging in this discussion, you then accuse me of thinking I'm telepathic, which would imply one either parrots info or is nuts and telepathic, damning anyone who thinks. What do you want? Parrots or thinkers? Or just people that think like you.
Were you in a bad mood when you read this? It has been a long time since I came across anything like this. In other words, why didn't you attempt to discuss the topic at hand more instead of attacking me? Try to keep the emotions out of it a little.

[dtrumbo]

Nah- they don't mind when it intrudes on the lives of people they don't like.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

[steve74baywin]

It's but one aspect of the multi-fronted war on the poor and working class of this nation. My suspicion is that these laws came straight from the American Legislative Exchange Council.


neal

I thought they were in favor of smaller, less intrusive government.

Good job Neal, that is one of the reasons I talk about principles and make my decisions based on principles. That group, like many other groups, is probably just a left or right tool to keep the discussion boxed between two lines, preventing people from being free and allowing a big Totalitarian government to be formed.
See, don't focus on groups or labels even, whether left, right, democrat, republican, progressive. Instead understand how no man should claim the right to impose his will on others, and that a government that is best is one that governs least. Governments are instituted among men to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Don't put your faith in men or groups, instead get an understanding of what is right. Do unto others as you would have them to undo you. Don't use guns to make social changes you think are good, lest you have a gun pointed at you to dictate morality.

Edited to add,
If a group says it is for one thing, but then does the opposite, that is a HIT on that group, not the idea. If what Neil thinks about the group is right, then it is the group that is wrong. Not smaller non intrusive government. If one says they are for smaller non intrusive gov then do the opposite, then hold that against the group, not the principle.
Many people loved the Republicans of the 80's, then when in changed after 911 they still loved them. They lost site of the principles they loved. Get principles, if a group has those principles, that is good, if they go against those principles, dump them. Stick with your principles.
The Tea Party seemed to have certain principles, now many of them go against those principles. Hold that against those that are hypocrites, do not hold it against the idea.
That there is exactly what many of us says always happens. Good ideas get hijacked, usually by people with big money who infiltrate the group. This seems to repeat itself over and over again.
Many were for the Dems who were "against the wars", they were going to get us out of the middle east. If the Dems in office change and don't do this, that is on them in office that changed, not proof that those "against the war" are actually for the war.

[ruckman101]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-drug-testing- ... 05581.html

Harass the weakest. Kinda like kicking puppies. Gubmint out of our lives! Right.


neal

[static]

And as it turns out, 98% of Welfare applicants are drug-free compared to 6% or more of (non-welfare-applicant) population.

And since the savings are now proven as whimsical (the State refunds the cost of the drug test to those that test clean) and the numbers of those now eliminated don't even come close to a balance, this charade just turned out to be a big joke.

What distraction will the right-wing use next to deflect attention from their real "cut taxes for corporations" agenda?

[steve74baywin]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-drug-testing- ... 05581.html

Harass the weakest. Kinda like kicking puppies. Gubmint out of our lives! Right.


neal

I read the article.
Yep, it's about time we get government out of our lives. Think about it, first they think they can use weapons, guns, force and such to take money from people and give it to others, now they want to drug test them. What is the common dominator here, just like almost everywhere, the government acting like a king.
Time to declare independence from this Plutocracy.
Anyone who wants to get them only partly out of our lives, you know, for example, someone who maybe would say, "get them out of drug testing welfare recipients", but they won't say "get them out of our wallets" or "get them out of my health choices", I think they deserve what ever the government does to them. They think they can pick and chose how the gov intrudes upon someone, it is like they reserve the right to influence how the masters treat the slaves. They don't really have a leg to stand on, they see themselves as slaves.

[RussellK]

Anyone who wants to get them only partly out of our lives, you know, for example, someone who maybe would say, "get them out of drug testing welfare recipients", but they won't say "get them out of our wallets" or "get them out of my health choices", I think they deserve what ever the government does to them. They think they can pick and chose how the gov intrudes upon someone, it is like they reserve the right to influence how the masters treat the slaves. They don't really have a leg to stand on, they see themselves as slaves.

You would be speaking of me Steve. Its always them, them, them, they, they, they, those, those, those with you isn't it. But it's me buddy. Me. And here's a flash for you. You're wrong. I don't see ourselves as slaves. You see us as slaves. And that last statement betrays the amount of contempt you have for us. I'm glad you and your ilk aren't in charge because you know what? You're no different than what you so abhor. Always ready to tell someone what they should think.

[steve74baywin]

You're no different than what you so abhor. Always ready to tell someone what they should think.

Your missing something very, very important, It is one thing to tell someone what they should think or do, it is another thing to use force to make them do it.
I may tell someone what I think is best, but chee, at least I don't use a gun to get them to do what I think.
I think this difference I just pointed out, makes all the difference in the world.