Drug Testing for Welfare.

[cowboybiker]

ACLU says its unConstitutional.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-05/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

[Marius_Ursus]

And I say Welfare is unConstitutional, rendering their point moot.

Boom.

[socket]

And I say the ACLU is unConstitutional

Bada Boom!

[cowboybiker]

I think its about time.
I gotta Drug Test for work.

[mslman71]

And I say Welfare is unConstitutional, rendering their point moot.

Boom.

^^^ this.

[discdoggie]

I think its about time.
I gotta Drug Test for work.

Well, unless someone's job is operating heavy machinery or something like that, I personally find it intrusive.

I know I'll catch flack for that, and I'm prepared. But that's how I feel.

[beachguy498]

I think its about time. I gotta Drug Test for work.

Shoot, I was drug testing in the workplace all through the 1970's....

Rob

[Barry Bonds]

If you get stopped here and have no auto insurance.

They put this big orange sticker on your car and leave it on the side of the road.

But they can't tow it.

Some ignorant congressman decided that a tow bill would put undue pressure on poor people to pay towing and storage.

Wat?

What about the "undue pressure" it puts on me to have unisured motorist coverage?

Driving and Welfare are privileges, not rights.

And this comes from someone who hasn't known where there next meal was coming from several times before.

[socket]

Shoot, I was drug testing in the workplace all through the 1970's....

Rob

lol

[whatevergirl]

When it comes to employment...main reason employers drug test is to get rate cuts in workers comp premiums.

If they do this for welfare...then, should they do it for unemployment benefits, too? Where would it end?

[socket]

I have a very liberal view when it comes to drugs(srs).

But when it comes to welfare recepients......I agree, they should be tested. It just makes sense. How can you raise kids, plan a budget, and get back on your feet if your spending your welfare check on drugs, smokes, and beer.
Besides, welfare wasn't ment to be used to support "baby cannons". It was set up to help women who lost their husbands(which at the time were the major bread winner).

From my own experiences in the hood and in trailer parks, much of the money is spent on smokes and 40's(very srs)

[cowboybiker]

When it comes to employment...main reason employers drug test is to get rate cuts in workers comp premiums.

If they do this for welfare...then, should they do it for unemployment benefits, too? Where would it end?

Im not worried. I studied for my drug test

[thepowerwithin]

I am FOR drug testing for welfare recipients.

I am FOR drug testing for employment ONLY if the employee is impaired and there are performance issues.

[anonymous]

Even though it sounds good on paper I question the effectiveness.

1.Not everyone on welfare is on drugs, or can't find a job at the time for that reason. A lot of extra money will be spent testing people who test positive, spending even more taxpayer money. Thousands and thousands of dollars.

2. There are numerous ways to pass drug tests, i.e. detox solutions, etc. People that do a lot of drugs know these and if they're really in need of welfare they'll find a way to pass.

3. Its mainly the hard drugs that are preventing people from finding jobs who are otherwise capable. Someone who smokes weed on occasion is not unemployed for that reason but would still be prevented from receiving welfare (the weakest of the three points but worth considering).

[Indestructible6]

I think its about time.
I gotta Drug Test for work.

Strong this.

If you need to get a drug test to work and pay into the system, you should need a drug test if you want to suck from the system. It really can't be more obvious.

[CaptChip40]

And I say Welfare is unConstitutional, rendering their point moot.

Boom.

You should run for Congress you have my vote.

[socket]

Even though it sounds good on paper I question the effectiveness.

1.Not everyone on welfare is on drugs, or can't find a job at the time for that reason. A lot of extra money will be spent testing people who test positive, spending even more taxpayer money. Thousands and thousands of dollars.

2. There are numerous ways to pass drug tests, i.e. detox solutions, etc. People that do a lot of drugs know these and if they're really in need of welfare they'll find a way to pass.

3. Its mainly the hard drugs that are preventing people from finding jobs who are otherwise capable. Someone who smokes weed on occasion is not unemployed for that reason but would still be prevented from receiving welfare (the weakest of the three points but worth considering).

^^^^^^Valid points

I should also consider that my experience with a large amount of "welfare" families came in the early 90's. Since the reforms under Clinton and the Repub congress the #'s and cases of those who recieve welfare has decreases, and there are more checks and balances now.

[BlondeAmazon]

I think its about time.
I gotta Drug Test for work.

Totally 100% agree

[auburnrunner]

Strong this.

If you need to get a drug test to work and pay into the system, you should need a drug test if you want to suck from the system. It really can't be more obvious.

Strong this^. I get drug tested at work... I pay taxes that pay into welfare. There is NO reason someone that can't pass a drug test should collect welfare.

All of this is besides the point that our country is broke as fuk and there are still people that support these retarded spending programs. ACLU is a joke.

[mslman71]

What happens when so-and-so who has 4 kids tests positive for THC and has her welfare pulled? Don't we end up back with the whole "but what about the children" issue?

I wish some of the academics would come hang out in my neighborhood at the grocery store. The crap that people are buying on the food stamp program (federal debit card), the volume of food they are buying, their general health, etc. It's just amazing and to know that I'm funding it makes me that much angrier.


In response to an earlier post:
Of course not all welfare recipients use drugs. If they did there'd be no need for testing. I'm curious to see if the testing doesn't end up costing us more than the welfare itself. Maybe random screenings or something.

[Indestructible6]

What happens when so-and-so who has 4 kids tests positive for THC and has her welfare pulled? Don't we end up back with the whole "but what about the children" issue?

Well that is what social services is for right?

[cowboybiker]

For the record.
I am not against welfare for it original intent.
But young girls who think that they should get pregnant so they can live that way is sad.
And I get irritated and the guys who seek them out for a meal ticket cause their to lazy to work and want to run the streets. Drug test them too.

I was on food stamps for 3 months and was embarrased and felt ashamed to use them.

[auburnrunner]

I was on food stamps for 3 months and was embarrased and felt ashamed to use them.

Thats how you are supposed to feel... thats why you decided to take action and get off them. My brother had to use them at a point in his life too.

Some people have no shame though...................... pathetic.

[snorkelman]

As an employment attorney in Florida, as soon as our governor started this concept I was pretty surprised that it gained traction. While I personally think recipients of public funds should be subject to drug testing, I also believe that this law will fail given previous interpretations of the 4th Amendment by Florida courts.

For those who care, here is a link to the Complaint (lawsuit) filed in this case by the ACLU of Florida.

http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Legal%20P...EComplaint.pdf

[Iceman1800]

Regardless of your moral position on this issue, it could never be cost effective. This is similar to the testing for AAS in Texas for high school athletes. They spent millions and only had 2 or 3 positive tests.

[Rhinoclan]

For the record.
I am not against welfare for it original intent.
But young girls who think that they should get pregnant so they can live that way is sad.
And I get irritated and the guys who seek them out for a meal ticket cause their to lazy to work and want to run the streets. Drug test them too.

I was on food stamps for 3 months and was embarrased and felt ashamed to use them.

I work with mostly low income, young women, about 50 in my department. There are only 3 of them who don't have children, and not one of them is married. A few (less than 10) are still with the father. Most have multiple "baby daddy's" as they call them.

The vast majority don't think that getting pregnant is a way to a meal ticket...it's not how they think. For the most part, they were raised this way, with a single mother, living on subsidies, so don't see any shame in it, don't understand who pays for the subsidies, and the community from which they come, not only don't speak out against it, but the friends and parents (now grandparents) celebrate it. They don't see that this level of poverty, and limited opportunity for themselves and their children is nothing short of a recurring cycle. This is what they see every day, so it's their "normal". Getting food stamps, rent subsidies, utility subsidies, free school breakfast and lunches just "is".

[auburnrunner]

Regardless of your moral position on this issue, it could never be cost effective. This is similar to the testing for AAS in Texas for high school athletes. They spent millions and only had 2 or 3 positive tests.

I would bet the money saved would faaaaaar outweigh the money spent on the drug tests. And I think you are stretching just a bit to try to compare this to high school athletics.

[cowboybiker]

I work with mostly low income, young women, about 50 in my department. There are only 3 of them who don't have children, and not one of them is married. A few (less than 10) are still with the father. Most have multiple "baby daddy's" as they call them.

The vast majority don't think that getting pregnant is a way to a meal ticket...it's not how they think. For the most part, they were raised this way, with a single mother, living on subsidies, so don't see any shame in it, don't understand who pays for the subsidies, and the community from which they come, not only don't speak out against it, but the friends and parents (now grandparents) celebrate it. They don't see that this level of poverty, and limited opportunity for themselves and their children is nothing short of a recurring cycle. This is what they see every day, so it's their "normal". Getting food stamps, rent subsidies, utility subsidies, free school breakfast and lunches just "is".

Agreed. But I was referring to the "Baby Daddy's" when I said meal ticket.

[anonymous]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


By definition of the ammendment wouldn't the government be insinuating that it is probable that someone who needs welfare is on drugs? I understand the argument that the government is giving them money so they should be able to have restrictions on it, but intrusion of privacy is another issue altogether. There is no law saying the government must give people welfare as far as I know, so if the government is voluntarily giving this money out all search and seizure laws should apply the same to the recipients as they would to any other persons.

[mslman71]

The vast majority don't think that getting pregnant is a way to a meal ticket...it's not how they think. For the most part, they were raised this way, with a single mother, living on subsidies, so don't see any shame in it, don't understand who pays for the subsidies, and the community from which they come, not only don't speak out against it, but the friends and parents (now grandparents) celebrate it. They don't see that this level of poverty, and limited opportunity for themselves and their children is nothing short of a recurring cycle. This is what they see every day, so it's their "normal". Getting food stamps, rent subsidies, utility subsidies, free school breakfast and lunches just "is".

^^^ Exactly. The "shame" aspect for some of us is cultural; how we were raised. Once it becomes normal over a couple of generations then there's no motivation to be anything different. Around here the nicest thing most of these people have is their vehicles because it's the only thing they actually have to purchase themselves. Everything else is directly purchased or heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. They don't take care of the parks, don't take care of their homes, don't bother to keep the streets clean, etc... There's no personal investment.

*Note, when I say "they" I am not referring to all people on welfare/support. "They" is _the_ subset of the population that has decided/determined that a permanent state of subsidized existence is adequate, acceptable, or the only option.