Drug Testing for Welfare - Help Me See the Light

[Sistinas666]

Also, because I have a problem with my companies drug policy does not mean I can just "leave". I could do that but who will ultimately foot the bill? Who will take care of my 3 dependants if I quite to show my protest

[ChronoGrl]

In my first ranty post I said that I've been tested twice for my current job, found it an invasion of privacy, and do not agree with drug testing unless your job responsibilities impact the lives of others.

Can't quit your job? Then quit complaining. :-P

[Despare]

Originally Posted by ChronoGrl

In my first ranty post I said that I've been tested twice for my current job, found it an invasion of privacy, and do not agree with drug testing unless your job responsibilities impact the lives of others.

Can't quit your job? Then quit complaining. :-P

Ah see, so an employer can request a drug test for any employee at any time but we can't test a welfare recipient who may show signs of drugs abuse? Oh, before you argue about the "signs" don't get one me because the police can pull you over in any state and search you because you may show them... they're already in place. I can't believe weed was mention so much either, but how can we not have the option to test somebody receiving government money if they show signs of real drug abuse? Anyway, some good points by all but for those of you talking about smoking weed while on welfare; how? How'd you get the stuff if you need government money to help keep you afloat? Grow lights, good soil... it's expensive even when you grow it yourself. Anyway, off topic, I still think we need the option to test people for competency before paying them to be a layabout (no I'm not saying all welfare recipients are layabouts so if you were planning on putting those words in mouth you can back off now). :)

[ChronoGrl]

Originally Posted by Despare

Ah see, so an employer can request a drug test for any employee at any time but we can't test a welfare recipient who may show signs of drugs abuse?

Actually quite a few people in this thread who are against drug testing said that they support it if the individual is showing signs of abuse so before you have a fucking hissy you may want to read all arguments.

There is a difference between ALL PEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR WELFARE MUST BE DRUG TESTED IN ORDER TO RECEIVE BENEFITES and PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND IF THEY APPEAR TO BE USING THEY SHOULD BE TESTED.

I'm arguing against the FORMER for all of the reasons that I previously mentioned and vehemently support REHABILITATION along with other alternatives to blanket testing that I mentioned. Honestly, I haven't really addressed the details of the latter (to be honest, I do think that if we go down the case worker route and someone is clearly using, the first step to getting them to rehab is most likely a drug test but I haven't given it much thought because I am honestly more troubled by fucking assholes who clearly never needed social services who think EVERYONE ON WELFARE IS LAZY AND A JUNKIE AND MY TAXES PAY FOR THEM THEREFORE TEST THE SHIT OUT OF THEM TO MAKE SURE MAI WELL EARNED MONEY IS NOT SPENT ON DRUGS UR BOOZE IT'S MY MONEY SO I CAN TELL THOSE LAZY IRRESPONSIBLE FUCKS HOW TO SPEND IT) so don't give me shitty comparisons to people who get drug tested by the police because I never said that I was against testing people who are obviously under the influence (on welfare or otherwise)

As I mentioned before: Worried that people on welfare are spending it on drugs or drug paraphernalia? Perhaps we should have more currency like food stamps that controls what a person can spend it on. Still cheaper than blanket drug testing.

All I'm saying is that I'm against blanket testing for ALL welfare recipients. I've given my reason why and have offered alternative solutions to the problem.

[Sistinas666]

@ Chrono, I know many, many foodstamp recipients who will happily take you to the store with them and let you shop for your groceries and them walk up to the cashier and pay for it all with their "vision card"(thats what they get here in Kansas, its similiar to a debit card but the balance can only be used on grocery items).

The going rate is that you pay them 50 cents for every dollar you spend. Thats right, you can get your groceries for half price. If it is a meth head(we have a huge problem with them in Kansas) you can sometimes get your food for 25 cents for every dollar.


What I am saying is no matter what method is used to try and make it legit they will get around it. Someone will always figure out a way "screw the system". Currency like the old fashioned food stamps just will not work.Have I taken advantage of this? Yes I have. If they don't plan on feeding their families atleast I can use it to feed mine.

I also believe in rehabilitation but isn't that a double edged sword? Does a person who fails a drug test because he smoked a joint 3 weeks ago deserve the same treatment as a meth/heroin addict who has mainlined for the past 6 years?

[ChronoGrl]

I know - Unfortunately there are always people who will take advantage. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. - I don't necessarily think that upping food stamps is the answer, but I think it's another way to address the concern. I guess the bleeding heart liberal comes out in cases like this - I would rather make sure that everyone who legitimately needs welfare gets it while also accepting those who abuse it... Instead of making the hurdles so high that it prevents people who legitimately need welfare from claiming it.

To be honest, when it comes down to it, junkies will always find a way to score drugs, regardless of the system. Addiction is a disease. There's only so much that the government can do to serve the people who actually need this help while curtailing abuse. I guess that's a little off topic, but I don't pretend to offer up any END ALL BE ALL answer here.

Also, I think that people who are legitimately addicted should be dealt with separately from welfare recipients in general.

The initial question posed is: Should all welfare recipients piss clean in order to receive benefits? No. For all of the aforementioned reasons.

The new question that we're posing is: If a particular welfare recipient who is clearly a junkie mess wants to claim their welfare, I think that they should be treated separately - Either through a rehabilitation program or through calling the police, but presumably there will be a drug test involved, though I don't know if it would necessarily be administered by the welfare office (if they engage the police, for example), but I'm just splitting hairs here.

Originally Posted by Sistinas666

I also believe in rehabilitation but isn't that a double edged sword? Does a person who fails a drug test because he smoked a joint 3 weeks ago deserve the same treatment as a meth/heroin addict who has mainlined for the past 6 years?

I think there's a disconnect here - That's not what I'm saying and is exactly why I'm against compulsory testing (be it for a job or to receive welfare in general) - I'm of the mindset where if someone is absolutely plowed/f'd up out of their mind and they walk in for welfare (or, really, in general, but we're taking the welfare case as the example), they should be dealt with either by calling the police or moving forward with rehabilitation case work... I don't consider the casual pot smoker to be part of this group. As I mentioned before, I think that people should be judged based on their performance (example: If I show up to work plowed or just suck at my job, I should probably be fired... to extend that example, if I show up for welfare plowed, I should probably be put into a rehabilitation program)

Maybe I'm not being clear:

• I don't think that drug testing should be enforced for every person who applies for/receives welfare - That's the main issue that I'm arguing against here - And I think that we actually agree on this.
• If someone shows up in the welfare office and they are clearly using, then they should be dealt with through the measures mentioned above. I don't exactly know the "how," but this case is different than just testing everyone who comes through the door asking for a welfare check - I think that we actually agree on this too.

[Sistinas666]

Originally Posted by ChronoGrl

I know - Unfortunately there are always people who will take advantage. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. - I don't necessarily think that upping food stamps is the answer, but I think it's another way to address the concern. I guess the bleeding heart liberal comes out in cases like this - I would rather make sure that everyone who legitimately needs welfare gets it while also accepting those who abuse it... Instead of making the hurdles so high that it prevents people who legitimately need welfare from claiming it.

To be honest, when it comes down to it, junkies will always find a way to score drugs, regardless of the system. Addiction is a disease. There's only so much that the government can do to serve the people who actually need this help while curtailing abuse. I guess that's a little off topic, but I don't pretend to offer up any END ALL BE ALL answer here.

Also, I think that people who are legitimately addicted should be dealt with separately from welfare recipients in general.

The initial question posed is: Should all welfare recipients piss clean in order to receive benefits? No. For all of the aforementioned reasons.

The new question that we're posing is: If a particular welfare recipient who is clearly a junkie mess wants to claim their welfare, I think that they should be treated separately - Either through a rehabilitation program or through calling the police, but presumably there will be a drug test involved, though I don't know if it would necessarily be administered by the welfare office (if they engage the police, for example), but I'm just splitting hairs here.




I think there's a disconnect here - That's not what I'm saying and is exactly why I'm against compulsory testing (be it for a job or to receive welfare in general) - I'm of the mindset where if someone is absolutely plowed/f'd up out of their mind and they walk in for welfare (or, really, in general, but we're taking the welfare case as the example), they should be dealt with either by calling the police or moving forward with rehabilitation case work... I don't consider the casual pot smoker to be part of this group. As I mentioned before, I think that people should be judged based on their performance (example: If I show up to work plowed or just suck at my job, I should probably be fired... to extend that example, if I show up for welfare plowed, I should probably be put into a rehabilitation program)

Maybe I'm not being clear:

• I don't think that drug testing should be enforced for every person who applies for/receives welfare - That's the main issue that I'm arguing against here - And I think that we actually agree on this.
• If someone shows up in the welfare office and they are clearly using, then they should be dealt with through the measures mentioned above. I don't exactly know the "how," but this case is different than just testing everyone who comes through the door asking for a welfare check - I think that we actually agree on this too.

I think we are very close to an agreement.

[ChronoGrl]

Originally Posted by Sistinas666

I think we are very close to an agreement.

Sweet - Want to go take some of your pain meds and have a drink? :D

[Sistinas666]

Originally Posted by ChronoGrl

Sweet - Want to go take some of your pain meds and have a drink? :D

Lol-yep!

I can understand why a person would want to feel like I do atm, all the time...Its nice....

[bwind22]

I have no problem whatsoever with the government mandating drug screening for people receiving government handouts. Who wants to see their tax dollars intended for the genuinely needy, handed out to some addict loser that's just too lazy to get a job? I can't fathom anyone other than a drug addict freeloader fearful that he'll be cut off objecting to this so it's quite a surprise to me that this thread is as long as it is. (No, I didn't read the whole thing so I do apologize if some of my post is redundant.) They are standing in line asking the working class taxpayers to pay for all their shit. The taxpayers should have every right to make sure they aren't blowing their free paycheck on drugs. That's my 2 cents.