No more welfare for druggers

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, why stop with drug testing? Since welfare recipients are just a drain on the economy, why don't we simply round up all welfare recipients and put them in public work camps? In addition to what ever public works projects they might be assigned to, they could be forced to construct their own housing, raise their own meat and grow their own fruit and vegetables all within the confines of the high, electric charged fences of the work camps.

After all, similar legislative action enacted in the 1800's through the early 1900's has proved so effective with separating the native tribes within the borders of the USA and keeping them on reservations.

Oh, and for those extra troublesome welfare queens and their drug addicted children, we could create "final solution booths" where one by one the booth would reduce them to jellied protoplasm which could then be purified of any drug residue and processed into Dorito-sized triangles which we could then feed back to the incarcerated to augment their diets.

But before we do, does anyone have remotely reliable stats on how many US citizens on public assistance/welfare are using drugs? Maybe Plush Rush or Dr. Laura can tell us.

I think these are some great ideas; although Dorito-sized triangles would be more costly to the Treasury than, say, Graham Cracker-sized protoplasm wafers.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, why stop with drug testing? Since welfare recipients are just a drain on the economy, why don't we simply round up all welfare recipients and put them in public work camps?

I'm having a tough time fathoming your objection here, MLB. What exactly is it about the proposal that bothers you? It seems to me that you're putting up a strawman argument.

As legislators are entrusted to be responsible stewards of taxpayer money, I view such legislation as a very valid element of due diligence in satisfying that obligation. As someone with both a socially liberal leaning, I place value in society providing a helping hand for those truly in need...but as one with a fiscally conservative bent, I'm not interested in wasting public money on lost causes.

Personally, I'd take the legislative restrictions a step further and proscribe alcohol and tobacco as well. No drinking, smoking, or getting high while you're on the dole. Them's the breaks...you don't like those rules, then good luck to you.
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,686
Media
14
Likes
1,894
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think that it is every human's God given right to smoke the marijuana that nature provides for us, regardless of income level. You should be able to grown your own weed on your porch and still be able to be on welfare. With this drug testing, that would not be possible.

Drug testing is fucking insidious and is an invasion of privacy.

People on welfare aren't allowed to have privacy?

I see... take away their welfare and then the person has to resort to robbing and stealing to get by. Then they end up in the prison system where it is VERY expensive to keep them... a net LOSS to the taxpayer.


A money saver on initial inspection, but an actual money waster when thought out more thoroughly.

Of course, Republicans don't do any actual critical thinking, they just touch the surface and move on to the next fucktard idea.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
The drug testing idea is simply an easy answer that really won't make much difference. Talk with the majority of educated social workers with degrees who work in Social and Family Welfare offices in most State Governments. They can give you a better argument than I can why this idea of being fiscally responsible won't have the "desired" affect for those with drug or alcohol problems. I'm not blowing smoke out of my butt.

I remember how much better these social issues (drug addiction and alcoholism) were dealt with before 1980. Sure, there's going to be some welfare abuse. But I'm afraid you're just creating more problems by requiring drug testing. The idea is to make the poor and disenfranchised more inclusive and supported within their communities. So what if they're smoking a doobie? Are they meeting their welfare requirements of the minimum hours they need to work to qualify for assistance? Are they taking advantage of the job training programs in place supported by both the private and public sectors? I'd be more worried that an alcoholic or drug addict isn't attending their required group therapy, education, and support group meetings than if they slip and smoke a joint, have a drink, etc.

Yeah, cut off all recipients of public assistance (that includes the hoards of the newly unemployed who history has shown to begin to "self-medicate" themselves with alcohol to deal with their newly found sense of despair and uselessness) because a snip of their hair proves they've smoked pot or fell off the wagon. By doing so you are simply further marginalizing them so their options for scraping out an existence will most likely lead to becoming small-time drug dealers and an increase in crack heads, or whatever, who'll resort to violent crime to get enough money to live.

What's that? It's already happening? Yeah, and it will get a lot worse once the holier than thou crowd thinks further disenfranchisement will make a "positive" difference. It won't. It never has. Education and a social support network have always proven to work better. Not 100%, just better.

Edit: Tripod brings up a good point. It's a lot more expensive to house people in jails and prisons than it is to work directly with them by requiring first time offenders to do more constructive things such as finish high school (if they haven't) or enter a job-training program so they can earn a decent living (if they have no job skills) rather than warehouse them. We're spending a lot more money warehousing first-time drug offenders because of the popular "mandatory sentencing acts" that sprung from the Reagan White House than we would other wise spend on enforced education, training, and social work -- group therapy that helps those at the very bottom of our "enlightened" society to develop a sense of self-worth and the pride that comes from succeeding at something. NOTE: I'm referring to the poor and those who commit drug-related, alcohol-related, crimes. Not upper-middle-class psychotics and sociopaths (which this site attracts its fair share) who beat their wives, run ponzi schemes, misappropriate pension funds, plan murders, or the colorful holly-go-lightly serial killers that make such good subjects for made-for-TV movies.

Now, excuse me while I go patch the hole on my sleeve where my heart has been bleeding.
 
Last edited:

SR_Blarney_Frank

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Posts
383
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
103
They are advocating testing of those Americans that collect taxpayer dollars; those that do not contribute taxes;

If I went on welfare tomorrow it would be after years of contributing tens of thousands of dollars to federal taxes. Why should I instantly be presumed a derelict dope fiend simply for falling on hard times and availing myself of the social safety net that the government deemed appropriate in the first place?

Those that collect public assistance and do nothing for it - at least have an obligation to expend those resources on their families and living obligations

So why stop drug testing with welfare recipients? We should test the elderly because they collect Social Security and do nothing for it. How about those receiving federal disability? What about Earned Income Tax credits? Should we follow up to make sure that their credit isn't being used on dope?

The entire tax system is a wealth transfer. I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes and get a lot less than my neighbor with his wife and 5 kids because for some weird reason the government wants to reward his behavior over the single, childless guy. Can I go down there and tell him to quit banging his wife so I don't have to keep paying massive property tax to put his rugrats through school? And can I drugtest them while I'm at it since I'm funding their education?

And the guy sitting on the bench is a taxpayer. In a sense, it's his bench too. You are referring to the student loans he paid back? And the bailout money that will be paid back?

I highly doubt Mr. park bench paid back the interest rate subsidy and deferral he received on his loan via taxpayer dollars. Probably at a time when he was a derelict student with no income who should've been randomly drug tested for freeloading.

Back to my point - the entire tax system is a wealth transfer. Some of us make out better than others. Welfare recipients happen to be an easy target and this little initiative is not much more than a resurrection of Reagan's "welfare queen" bullshit.

You keep wanting to make corner cases while ignoring the larger points. Do we advocate a society where those who pay the most in taxes enjoy greater freedom and privileges than those who don't? Because that's essentially the extrapolation here.
 
Last edited:

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If I went on welfare tomorrow it would be after years of contributing tens of thousands of dollars to federal taxes. Why should I instantly be presumed a derelict dope fiend simply for falling on hard times and availing myself of the social safety net that the government deemed appropriate in the first place?

If you fell on hard times drugs won't get you back in the good, bro.



So why stop drug testing with welfare recipients? We should test the elderly because they collect Social Security and do nothing for it. How about those receiving federal disability? What about Earned Income Tax credits? Should we follow up to make sure that their credit isn't being used on dope?

Earned income tax credit. That means they have a J.O.B.


The entire tax system is a wealth transfer. I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes and get a lot less than my neighbor with his wife and 5 kids because for some weird reason the government wants to reward his behavior over the single, childless guy. Can I go down there and tell him to quit banging his wife so I don't have to keep paying massive property tax to put his rugrats through school? And can I drugtest them while I'm at it since I'm funding their education?

Guy works, huh?


I highly doubt Mr. park bench paid back the interest rate subsidy and deferral he received on his loan via taxpayer dollars. Probably at a time when he was a derelict student with no income who should've been randomly drug tested for freeloading.

You highly doubt? K. Please demonstrate the pay-back ratio of college students.

Back to my point - the entire tax system is a wealth transfer. Some of us make out better than others. Welfare recipients happen to be an easy target and this little initiative is not much more than a resurrection of Reagan's "welfare queen" bullshit.

No its not. You give or you take.


You keep wanting to make corner cases while ignoring the larger points. Do we advocate a society where those who pay the most in taxes enjoy greater freedom and privileges than those who don't? Because that's essentially the extrapolation here.

You're funny. those who pay the most in taxes? These people don't pay taxes period. They take. Some are deserving of aid. Just don't spend it on drugs. Guess you don't give a shit about starving kids.

Wake up.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
Stupid idea, no wonder Starinvestor is behind it, he hates the poor as he has demonstrated many times on this board. I remember back when he was blaming ACORN and the CRA for all kinds of shit, which he has apparently been slowly distancing himself from.

Lets look at this one.

Do these laws provide rehabilitation for those it removes benefits from? Unlikely. Enjoy going through dumpsters for food, should have thought of that before you developed a crippling drug addiction, fucker!

Poor because of your crippling drug addiction? Please allow us to kick you while you're down and remove hope of ever beating it.

Add a huge overhead for drug tests, the vast majority of which will come back negative, during a time of very tight budgets? Yep!

Lost your job, barely scraping by, and new to the public assistance system? Fuck you, it's not our problem if your poor, hope you like an invasion of privacy

Possible breach of 4th Amendment rights? Check

Laws like this treat addicts like subhuman animals and criminals. While some criminals are addicts, not all addicts are criminals(other than drug use). Most are legitimately fucked up and need help. This kind of shit will do nothing but make things worse. But I'm just a bleeding heart liberal right? Everything is black and white, no gray, no sir.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Stupid idea, no wonder Starinvestor is behind it, he hates the poor as he has demonstrated many times on this board. I remember back when he was blaming ACORN and the CRA for all kinds of shit, which he has apparently been slowly distancing himself from.

Lets look at this one.

Do these laws provide rehabilitation for those it removes benefits from? Unlikely. Enjoy going through dumpsters for food, should have thought of that before you developed a crippling drug addiction, fucker!

Poor because of your crippling drug addiction? Please allow us to kick you while you're down and remove hope of ever beating it.

Add a huge overhead for drug tests, the vast majority of which will come back negative, during a time of very tight budgets? Yep!

Lost your job, barely scraping by, and new to the public assistance system? Fuck you, it's not our problem if your poor, hope you like an invasion of privacy

Possible breach of 4th Amendment rights? Check

Laws like this treat addicts like subhuman animals and criminals. While some criminals are addicts, not all addicts are criminals(other than drug use). Most are legitimately fucked up and need help. This kind of shit will do nothing but make things worse. But I'm just a bleeding heart liberal right? Everything is black and white, no gray, no sir.

Sadly, this detailed explanation will go right through one ear and come out some other crevice we dare not mention.

I agree that welfare money shouldn't be spent on drugs, but putting these already down & depressed people on a mandatory drug test is not the answer. Perhaps if our government found a way to make sure money was dispensed in a fashion that could only be spent on necessities we can please both sides? Instead of giving welfare recipients with a drug problem an actual check, give them a personalized, plastic card with a monthly spending limit or some other kind of voucher that can only be used on particular goods. That way, they can't sell them to others in exchange for cash. They do similar things with Food Stamps & WIC, they can do it with welfare as well.

Crisis (and rhetoric) solved. Welcome to the gray area. :wink:
 

javyn

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
1,015
Media
4
Likes
14
Points
123
Normally I could get behind this, but seriously, this is a non-issue. The savings would be marginal at best, because frankly, the money we pay out in welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to the money we spend on say, pointless wars and bailing out crooked banking execs.

Why don't we focus on fixing the large problems before moving on to the small ones? This is little more than Republicans trying to make something out of nothing.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Normally I could get behind this, but seriously, this is a non-issue. The savings would be marginal at best, because frankly, the money we pay out in welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to the money we spend on say, pointless wars and bailing out crooked banking execs.

Why don't we focus on fixing the large problems before moving on to the small ones? This is little more than Republicans trying to make something out of nothing.


Um, transfer payments are 45% of the federal budget.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0810-39.pdf
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Not an American, but have an opinion anyway (we steal most of your laws eventually anyway...)

My husband lost his job a few years ago, and while looking for a new one, we received benefits to help us provide for our family. The couple a few doors down were also receiving the same benefits.

We'd get up in the morning, get the kids ready for school, take them, come home and I'd do housework while he looked for a job, and when I was done, I'd look for one too. Both of us working wasn't financially possible with the addition of childcare costs, but if we both looked, we had double the chance of one of us getting something. We'd get the kids from school, take them to the park with the dog if it was nice, come home, I'd feed them, he'd keep looking for work.

They'd get up at around 11am, after their kids by several hours. The oldest daughter (8) would get up, take herself to the shop downstairs in her pj's, buy herself a can of coke and a mars bar. The dad would sit outside smoking a joint, before making his way down to the shop and buying 1 small jar of baby food (to be shared between 9month old twins) and a can of Carling (or what ever happened to be on offer) The rest of the day was spent fighting with the mother because he'd smoked all the weed, and running back down to the shop for more beer. Come 7pm, a car would pull up in the car park, he'd hand over his money, and we'd spend the rest of the night listening to the drug fueled fighting and watching the police running back and forth trying to avoid yet another stabbing. Their drug of choice for the evenings was coke. They'd both been inside for various things, mainly drug and violence related.

Each day involved a pattern of them starting at the flat at one end, and working their way to the other end, begging for food scraps, milk, tea and so on because they "hadn't got their payment" or "I don't know what happened to the money, I had it this morning" if you didn't give them what they wanted, you were the target of their attacks for the next few months.

This couple not only got the benefits, snorted them and caused all sorts of hell for all around them, but also had the added financial support of being moved 4 times at the cost of others because they believed them to be the victims, but also on a regular basis would phone social services begging for emergency money because they'd run out (they usually pulled that on a friday night when all the normal workers had left)

Do I think people on welfare should be tested? Yes. Why? Because its fucking sickening that people who are offered so much assistance to get themselves sorted, take it and do fuck all with it, while others are given the bare minimum and work their asses off to make their own situations better.

No it won't stop all waste of benefits, but some are a little harder to detect than others on an official basis, its a damn good start though.

Thanks for that perspective, Kotch. If the drug-addicted were only inflicting destructions on themselves, it would be one thing. But that simply isn't the case.
 

SR_Blarney_Frank

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Posts
383
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
103
If you fell on hard times drugs won't get you back in the good, bro.





Earned income tax credit. That means they have a J.O.B.




Guy works, huh?




You highly doubt? K. Please demonstrate the pay-back ratio of college students.



No its not. You give or you take.




You're funny. those who pay the most in taxes? These people don't pay taxes period. They take. Some are deserving of aid. Just don't spend it on drugs. Guess you don't give a shit about starving kids.

Wake up.

That's really the best rebuttal you could muster? Do you post this stuff because you're interested in a dialog or because you simply want to bloviate in public? I mistook you for the former but turns out to the latter. Have fun in your echo chamber.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That's really the best rebuttal you could muster? Do you post this stuff because you're interested in a dialog or because you simply want to bloviate in public? I mistook you for the former but turns out to the latter. Have fun in your echo chamber.

Its very difficult for me to understand how you can crusade for the rights of druggers; but call college students 'freeloaders' and imply that other forms of government spending such as parks, roads, etc. are really just another form of transfer payment.

At the end of the day, the public assistance programs have been created to provide temporary assistance for those that have fallen on hard times. A drug addiction greatly increases the likelihood that those hard times will become permanent.

Can you at least agree that a dependency on drugs impedes in the process of personal growth - both professionally and otherwise?
 

SR_Blarney_Frank

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Posts
383
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
103
Its very difficult for me to understand how you can crusade for the rights of druggers; but call college students 'freeloaders' and imply that other forms of government spending such as parks, roads, etc. are really just another form of transfer payment.

Now you're just employing the same rhetorical fallacy as your talk radio compatriots. Because I oppose drug testing of welfare recipients I am "for the rights of druggers." It doesn't take a genius to realize the faulty reasoning but you'll try it anyway. What I am advocating for is the right to privacy of American citizens who have done nothing wrong other than to avail themselves of services provided by decree of Congress and various Federal and State agencies. Apparently receiving welfare is now akin to being prone to - or at least thinking about - criminal activity.

Most college students aren't contributing to tax receipts but receive federal subsidies and grants. Is your problem really with people receiving tax dollar benefits? I think you simply have a problem with welfare. That's perfectly fine, but you'd have to admit you're singling out welfare recipients. For some reason you're disinclined.

At the end of the day, the public assistance programs have been created to provide temporary assistance for those that have fallen on hard times. A drug addiction greatly increases the likelihood that those hard times will become permanent.

Did I miss the legislation which made welfare a permanent subsidy without having to return to work? Drug use probably also increases the percentage of school dropouts. Drugs are bad. Drugs are illegal. Already. Do you advocate for the government going beyond that and coming to your door to ask for a cup of pee? Oh you owe the IRS back taxes? Let's come drug test you and make sure you're not snorting what you could be paying. You see where this goes.

And can you at least acknowledge I've never once advocated for drug use nor did I deny that it's destructive?

And can you also answer to why welfare recipients should be subject to unwarranted drug tests while all other recipients of federal subsidies and funds should not?
 
Last edited:

javyn

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
1,015
Media
4
Likes
14
Points
123

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
What I am advocating for is the right to privacy of American citizens who have done nothing wrong other than to avail themselves of services provided by decree of Congress and various Federal and State agencies. Apparently receiving welfare is now akin to being prone to - or at least thinking about - criminal activity.

There is a propensity in poorer communities for violence; and much of it is drug-related. That is not to say that 'suddenly' receiving welfare will cause one to become violent. But turning a blind eye to those that are engaging in the use of harmful drugs...and financing a portion or all of the purchase of those drugs...is simply wrong.

Purchasing cocaine, for example, is against the law.

Most college students aren't contributing to tax receipts but receive federal subsidies and grants. Is your problem really with people receiving tax dollar benefits? I think you simply have a problem with welfare. That's perfectly fine, but you'd have to admit you're singling out welfare recipients. For some reason you're disinclined.

Apples and oranges. College students are performing something. They are learning a skill in which they will contribute to society and provide tangible benefits to other people. They are not getting something for nothing.


Did I miss the legislation which made welfare a permanent subsidy without having to return to work? Drug use probably also increases the percentage of school dropouts. Drugs are bad. Drugs are illegal. Already. Do you advocate for the government going beyond that and coming to your door to ask for a cup of pee? Oh you owe the IRS back taxes? Let's come drug test you and make sure you're not snorting what you could be paying. You see where this goes.
I understand your point, steven. Please try to understand mine. In the OP I posted a link in which some states are addressing the drug issue with welfare recipients. I support that legislation, and I understand that you don't. Your point is, Where do you draw the line. And that is a good point. But I don't believe it is practical when this is a black and white piece of legislation.

And can you at least acknowledge I've never once advocated for drug use nor did I deny that it's destructive?
Yes, but I will point out that I haven't seen you acknowledge the opposite, either.

And can you also answer to why welfare recipients should be subject to unwarranted drug tests while all other recipients of federal subsidies and funds should not?

Because it is a handout. Some deserving of it; some not. The other benefactors of grants/funds are contributing something, performing something, or bettering themselves in some way.

Welfare recipients do none of the above.
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
193
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Cocaine goes out of your system in a matter of a few days, so the drug testing will be catching VERY few coke heads. Who those laws will catch are marijuana users. It is just a way of disenfranchising the millions of Americans who smoke weed and a pathetic way of saving money.

This is a very good point. Meth, cocaine, heroin, MDMA, crack cocaine, benzos, opiates...all undectable after 2-5 days of use. The only people this law would be catching is pot smokers...and pot is pretty much legal in 13 states...this measure would be a terrible waste of tax payer money