Drug tests for welfare recipients

[B_VinylBoy]

No...you can't-- which is all the more reason to be assured that MY tax money is not going to pay for illegal drugs

As if I don't pay taxes either.
Spare me your inflated sense of entitlement.

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

I think it's a human rights issue when you come down to it. Not to derail the thread, but take Haiti for example...there are literally 10,000+ charity organizations from religious groups, to NGOs, to government sponsored aid programs that have been operating there for decades. They have spent billions of dollars in what is essentially a welfare state, separate from the official government of Haiti, which as recent events show, provides no meaningful services.

The people there have no better housing, food, or job prospects than they did when there were only 5,000 organizations spending half as much money, and the only people making any real cash are the ones working for (or in a small number of cases, stealing from) the aid groups. Welfare just doesn't work to create long-term prosperity. In Haiti, there are societal and cultural reasons for this (such as the high cost of certain socio-religious practices, feasts and weddings and whatnot) but by and large there ought to be better conditions there if the programs worked. I wish they did, but they just...don't.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Drug testing: a lot of this would be moot if the USA would repeal some of its harsher laws towards drugs. The jails would be emptied, aspects of organized crime would be crippled and money spent on jails and trials would find better venues.

People are going to use drugs wether you like it or not. Drop the issue of "holier than thou" on this issue and what do you have?

Someone ranting an old rant I've been hearing since 1957. "The bums on welfare", which stills holds a candle for the racists, the ultra right and those too dumb to have an opinion and pick scabs on old issues.

It isn't as tax burdening as it used to be; improvements could be made.

Drug tests for everyone? Talk about finding useful venues for tax money...

 

[Pye]

As if I don't pay taxes either.
Spare me your inflated sense of entitlement.

Take $$ from your pocket and pay for other people's drugs and then lecture me on my sense of entitlement

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Take $$ from your pocket and pay for other people's drugs and then lecture me on my sense of entitlement

I already do. You act as if you're doing something that many people in America do not do already. As if you're the only person on this board that has contributed out of their own pockets to help someone pay for a drug before... prescription, over the counter, or illegal. Please...

Your tax dollars are going to be used on some things you don't approve of. Deal with it. Acting as if you're providing some kind of moral service, by demanding drug testing on Welfare recipients as if that's going to cut down your costs is disingenuous. It doesn't solve any problems, all the while further polarizing the poor & impoverished. if you have a problem with it? Don't pay your taxes. Of course, you know the IRS will have a problem with that. Just make sure to tell them when you're audited, that you heard from a number of political pundits that some of your pennies were given to a few Welfare cheats who snorted cocaine and see where that gets you, OK?

Again... SPARE me your inflated sense of entitlement.

Drug testing: a lot of this would be moot if the USA would repeal some of its harsher laws towards drugs.

It's good to know there are some people on this board that are thinking outside the box... or at least past their W2s. :biggrin:

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

Maybe I was too subtle before...so here goes. I despise the moralistic, self-righteous assholes on the right who can't get beyond the thought of drugged-up junkies/hippies having more fun than they do and not doing an honest day's work.

I likewise loathe the condescending, the looney-toon, "wouldn't it be nice if..." crowd on the left that think poor people are always victims of something and are never intelligent, responsible adults, with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone esle, who should take care of their own goddamn lives and would have a better time of it if people weren't trying to "assist" them all the time.

The poor are not a different species, they're people who have less money than other people. That's all they are. Every society has them.

Should they be screened for drugs because they get tax dollars? No! The drugs should be legalized. Should they continue to get tax dollars if they sit around and smoke dope all day rather than get a job? No! They should have to earn a living like everyone else, or find some means of surviving that's not on the public tit.

I've been poor, though not on welfare. I've recently gotten to be lower upper-class. It's a hell of a lot better, and I refuse to apologise for it. Go make your own money, I've spent the past 15 years proving it can be done. It's not easy. It's not supposed to be.

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

I already do. You act as if you're doing something that many people in America do not do already. As if you're the only person on this board that has contributed out of their own pockets to help someone pay for a drug before... prescription, over the counter, or illegal. Please...

Your tax dollars are going to be used on some things you don't approve of. Deal with it. Acting as if you're providing some kind of moral service, by demanding drug testing on Welfare recipients as if that's going to cut down your costs is disingenuous. It doesn't solve any problems, all the while further polarizing the poor & impoverished. if you have a problem with it? Don't pay your taxes. Of course, you know the IRS will have a problem with that. Just make sure to tell them when you're audited, that you heard from a number of political pundits that some of your pennies were given to a few Welfare cheats who snorted cocaine and see where that gets you, OK?

Again... SPARE me your inflated sense of entitlement.



It's good to know there are some people on this board that are thinking outside the box... or at least past their W2s. :biggrin:

if you are drug tested for a government job then you should also be tested for a government handout.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

E]I likewise loathe the condescending, the looney-toon, "wouldn't it be nice if..." crowd on the left that think poor people are always victims of something and are never intelligent, responsible adults, with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone esle, who should take care of their own goddamn lives and would have a better time of it if people weren't trying to "assist" them all the time.

Bullshit.
Is it my fault that you don't like to hear or be reminded as to what it's really like to grow up poor? What makes you think you're no more a victim than these same people? Last time I checked, YOU'RE the one trying to penny pinch to better support your own habits. What's the matter? Your so-called good paying job isn't enough? Don't want to further budget and cut out unnecessary spending from your own? And you have the nerve to be talking about being responsible? At least you have the resources to do something about it. I don't want to hear about what you want. Neither does anyone caught in the struggle. Can't take a vacation? Tough shit.

I've been poor, though not on welfare. I've recently gotten to be lower upper-class. It's a hell of a lit better, and I refuse to apologise for it. Go make your own money, I've spent the past 15 years proving it can be done. It's not easy. It's not supposed to be.

I was born poor, grew up poor, moved to New York and reached my way to the middle class, lost almost everything through the dot com crash, and now find myself back in the lower middle class bracket after recovering a bit. Never been on welfare either. The differences between you and me? I'm not a selfish & greedy son of a bitch who forgot where they came from. That's why I'm not quick to downplay or dismiss someone else's social or financial struggles. What they're experiencing, and what you think you left behind, can become anyone of our realities tomorrow. And then what?

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

I honestly thought i was agreeing with most of what you were saying, Vinyl,..... I just think it's a disservice to people trying to make ends meet to say they're always the victim of something; crime, bad neighborhood, bad economy, drugs, gangs, global warming, racism, sexism, restless leg syndrome, or "the rich".

Why is there always a boogeyman? With all these forces aligned against them it's a wonder anyone who isn't a billionaire gets out of bed in the morning.

Of course i remember where i came from...i didn't like it, that's why i left.

There is nothing wrong with government giving a hand up to someone who gets knocked on their ass. life does that to people. there is something wrong with taking more than a couple months to a year to get back on your feet. I don't care what the economy is doing. Can't find a job where you live? move. Can't find a job in your field? go to the library and learn something new. haven't got much education? I know a man who doesn't read or write who made himself a multi-millionaire with zero help. He's a rare case, true, but it's still inspirational.

Am I a bastard...probably, but i'm a damn sight more compassionate than life is.

Incedentally, and sincerely, well done to Vinyl... NYC is one of the worst places to try and make money...the cost of living there is one of the 10 highest in the world. I'm glad to hear someone can still do the bootstrap thing there.

Just to clear up, when i said sure to drug testing, in my other post, it was tongue in cheek. I figured someone might wonder about that...

 

[avg_joe]

Go ahead and test them. I'm willing to bet the employed people buy more drugs anyway...

True. The employed people have more money than the unemployed.

 

[b.c.]

if you are drug tested for a government job then you should also be tested for a government handout.

For one, the petition calls for drug testing of everyone receiving some kind of federal assistance, specifically welfare and unemployment insurance. I'd beg to differ whether both qualify as a "government handout".

Yes, UI (regular benefits) is paid from contributions made by employers. But employers take into consideration that cost when they decide on the salaries they pay you.

Furthermore, the Department of Laber that administers the program, its directors, and employees, are not paid for by employers' contributions, but by taxes paid by John Q. Public.

So yes, taxpayer money does in part support and pay for the program. And you pay taxes on the payments. So if you lose your job through no fault of your own, you are entitled to that compensation. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

As for drug testing of everyone getting federal assistance, it's curious to me those who propose such an idea, those who otherwise rail against too much government red tape.

And just who do they think is going to foot the bill for such a program (drug testing applicants) and provide for the administration, processing, and collection of the data on every applicant of welfare, unemployment insurance, and other benefits (as if the process isn't already a boondoggle)?

And more importantly, to what degree will any benefit of all of that effort offset the costs and difficulty of implementing such an undertaking?

As I said, bullshit arguments, designed to deflect public attention from other issues, like perhaps, all those corporations who'll be lining the pockets of politicians and trying to buy our vote. A typical ploy. Get everyone thinking about one segment of the population (those get over s.o.b.'s on "government handouts") while the other son's of bitches laugh all the way to their (bailed out) banks.

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

For one, the petition calls for drug testing of everyone receiving some kind of federal assistance, specifically welfare and unemployment insurance. I'd beg to differ whether both qualify as a "government handout".

Yes, UI (regular benefits) is paid from contributions made by employers. But employers take into consideration that cost when they decide on the salaries they pay you.

Furthermore, the Department of Laber that administers the program, its directors, and employees, are not paid for by employers' contributions, but by taxes paid by John Q. Public.

So yes, taxpayer money does in part support and pay for the program. And you pay taxes on the payments. So if you lose your job through no fault of your own, you are entitled to that compensation. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

As for drug testing of everyone getting federal assistance, it's curious to me those who propose such an idea, those who otherwise rail against too much government red tape.

And just who do they think is going to foot the bill for such a program (drug testing applicants) and provide for the administration, processing, and collection of the data on every applicant of welfare, unemployment insurance, and other benefits (as if the process isn't already a boondoggle)?

And more importantly, to what degree will any benefit of all of that effort offset the costs and difficulty of implementing such an undertaking?

As I said, bullshit arguments, designed to deflect public attention from other issues, like perhaps, all those corporations who'll be lining the pockets of politicians and trying to buy our vote. A typical ploy. Get everyone thinking about one segment of the population (those get over s.o.b.'s on "government handouts") while the other son's of bitches laugh all the way to their (bailed out) banks.

I have no idea how what you wrote correlates to drug testing for a government job. But in response to to bullshit argument to deflect the public attention fromother issues. I do not concure. The dems love to have poor people, if there were none thye would have no constituents. by the way the bailed out banks paid the loans back with interest. something that GM and Chrysler have not done.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I have no idea how what you wrote correlates to drug testing for a government job.

You're the one trying to make the argument about "government jobs" when the thread topic clearly states "welfare recipients".

But in response to to bullshit argument to deflect the public attention fromother issues. I concur. The dems love to have poor people, if there were none thye would have no constituents.

Considering that the rich only make up 2% of this country, I wouldn't be trying to spin this as some kind of negative comment against Democrats. It only makes you look like someone who is completely disconnected with reality, as well as someone who can't read.

 

[tripod]

Drug tests are just ways of ensuring that people will drink and smoke as much as possible. There are very few deaths related to drug use and TONS related to cigarettes and alcohol. Drunk driving and second hand smoke KILL, whereas doing bongs on your couch watching the History channel hurts NOBODY.

Smoking Marijuana makes one a better driver.

This is all about Marijuana because cocaine and speed leaves your system in a matter of days... alcohol a matter of hours... they don't even test for one of the world's most lethal substances (cigarettes) and painkikllers are always allowed.

Drug tests are just another tool in the arsenal of the war on Marijuana.

Marijuana use attracts right brainers and drug tests are also just a way to discriminate against them... the left brainers have been attacking the right brainers since the dawn of time.

It's fucking pathetic and a colossal invasion of privacy.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

if you are drug tested for a government job then you should also be tested for a government handout.

Did you think before you wrote this? When government workers fail a drug test, they are usually let go. If a welfare recipient fails a drug test, should they be denied assistance? If so, what should happen to them? Should they become another homeless person for you to bitch about?

What practical advantage could possibly be achieved by drug testing welfare recipients?

This thread clearly distinguishes those who have compassion with those who don't--and the smart ones from the....

 

[B_starinvestor]

What practical advantage could possibly be achieved by drug testing welfare recipients?

...

if drug-users know that they will sacrifice welfare benefits if they test positive, it will encourage them to quit using drugs - which is a vital step in becoming a productive member of society.

This from the National Institute of Health:

Drug abuse and addiction are a major burden to society. Estimates of the total overall costs of substance abuse in the United States—including health- and crime-related costs as well as losses in productivity—exceed half a trillion dollars annually. This includes approximately $181 billion for illicit drugs,1 $168 billion for tobacco,2 and $185 billion for alcohol.3 Staggering as these numbers are, however, they do not fully describe the breadth of deleterious public health—and safety—implications, which include family disintegration, loss of employment, failure in school, domestic violence, child abuse, and other crimes.

In affect, you are enabling these drug users to continue with drug use if there isn't any disincentive to quit. More info on the perilous affects of drugs:

Understanding Drug Abuse and Addiction - InfoFacts - NIDA

You are not doing druggers any favors by making it easy for them to continue to do drugs. Weaning a drugger off of drugs is the best thing for his/her personal growth; and allows them the opportunity to live a healthy, vibrant member of society.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Do you do drugs, star?
If so, then kindly follow your own advice.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Do you do drugs, star?
If so, then kindly follow your own advice.

Social drinker and an occasional cigarette. Both being entirely legal.

I remember that you are a heavy user from an earlier conversation - and that doesn't bother me because I know you aren't on welfare. But I know of a few heavy users who have thrown their lives away; and others that have gotten on the straight and narrow and live great lives now.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Social drinker and an occasional cigarette. Both being entirely legal.

Most people buy alcohol and cigarettes than illegal drugs. Even the poor.

I remember that you are a heavy user from an earlier conversation - and that doesn't bother me because I know you aren't on welfare.

You're talking completely out of your ass.
Besides the occasional drink, I don't do drugs. At all. I don't even smoke. I don't know who you talked to about being a heavy user, but it wasn't me. But thank you for lying.

But I know of a few heavy users who have thrown their lives away; and others that have gotten on the straight and narrow and live great lives now.

My lungs are pinker than the vagina you came out of. I've been in the club scene for close to 20 years, surrounded by all of the pills, powders and stimulants you can think of and have stayed clear away from all of it. If anything, I can teach you a few things about staying away from drugs.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

if drug-users know that they will sacrifice welfare benefits if they test positive, it will encourage them to quit using drugs - which is a vital step in becoming a productive member of society.

This from the National Institute of Health:

Drug abuse and addiction are a major burden to society. Estimates of the total overall costs of substance abuse in the United States—including health- and crime-related costs as well as losses in productivity—exceed half a trillion dollars annually. This includes approximately $181 billion for illicit drugs,1 $168 billion for tobacco,2 and $185 billion for alcohol.3 Staggering as these numbers are, however, they do not fully describe the breadth of deleterious public health—and safety—implications, which include family disintegration, loss of employment, failure in school, domestic violence, child abuse, and other crimes.

In affect, you are enabling these drug users to continue with drug use if there isn't any disincentive to quit. More info on the perilous affects of drugs:

Understanding Drug Abuse and Addiction - InfoFacts - NIDA

You are not doing druggers any favors by making it easy for them to continue to do drugs. Weaning a drugger off of drugs is the best thing for his/her personal growth; and allows them the opportunity to live a healthy, vibrant member of society.

Just wow. It wasn't so long ago that I heard of the "Social Safety Net." Now it's the "National Kick them While They are Down Program™."

There is nothing in that quote that correlates denial of welfare with improved quality of life. There is also no proof that forcing (er... "weaning") people off of drugs will keep them off of drugs. In fact, I'd hazard to guess that if some of these people (yes, they are people) are addicted to hardcore drugs, and if they are denied welfare, they'd only resort to crime to support their habit. Your reasoning lacks a systemic scope.

How about providing counseling to help (yes, I know that helping welfare rats may seem icky to you) welfare recipients. Or job placement programs that offer jobs which pay more than their dole money. Or some compassion, which could improve their self-esteem and inspire them to work.

How about looking at the cause? Why are these people on welfare? Why are they satisfied living well below the poverty level? Why do they lack motivation? If you'd bother to look at these questions, you could find out for yourself that mental illness--particularly depression and anxiety--play a major role here.

Welfare to Work programs have been proven to be ineffective. They don't make money, they don't help the welfare recipient, and they can do far more harm than good. They are indentured servitude. NGO programs have been successful, such as the LDS Welfare Program, but society's attitudes need to change too. Public health nurses, Churches, parents, employers and a host of other fields need to come out of their silos and work together to reduce the problem of unemployment; it should not be the sole responsibility of the government.

Denying welfare will create criminals and homeless people. If you think that this is a better solution, then you live in a far-too-idealistic world.

Also, Star, be careful what you wish for. Now that corporations are "people," the same rules can apply to them.