I know this topic has come up many times, especially last fall, and it's always pitted as a red vs. blue issue but I think there is surprisingly more consensus than people would think. Finally a Two Sentz post you can be proud of...
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs. Lawmakers in at least eight states [WV, OK, AZ, FL, MS, HI, MN, KS] want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.
Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds, but they also concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.
Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.
Personally, I like the idea in theory, but I'm sure there are certian situations that would warrant case by case evaluation. Thoughts?
Full Article
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
36 comments:
I agree, Why give folks money when they buy drugs with it? I know they get the little card or food stamps but they just trade for what they want. I am a firm believer in helping those that need it. The Bible teaches to take care of the poor and the widows. It also says that the person who won't work (capable but refuses) doesn't eat. If we are going to give out money it should come with responsiblity and accountability. This issue shouldn't be a red vs. blue but one of fiscal common sense
I'm all for it. If people would rather have their drugs than financial help, so be it. Good grief, you have to have a drug test to work at Walmart, where you get paid to work. Why pay people NOT to work and sit at home using drugs?
how did I know R1 would get the first comment?
If we can make our workers take random drug tests before allowing them to work, why not make people receiving social services take random drug tests? If someone tests positive, they should be routed through a detox or drug rehab program to help them get off drugs before cutting them off from public assistance. After 3 strikes though (3 positive tests), you're out. If you can find money for drugs, you can find money to support and feed yourself. "Oh, I've got kids, you can't do that to me." Okay, we'll take your kids and raise them until you can get clean and stay clean. I'd also like to have all males and females receiving public assistance to receive some sort of beneath the skin contraceptive. I don't want you having more kids and making me pay more to support them while you're already receiving help. If you're healthy enough to have sex, you're healthy to hold a job and be on contraception to prevent more births until you can afford to raise the children you produce.
I can't think of one case by case situation regarding illegal drug use for food stamps. Please enlighten us.
I'm glad to know you're thinking about me. I actually enjoy seeing the articles you post. It really makes me think. I believe at times we all get lost in our own little mind boxes and we need to see what others are thinking. I enjoy the mind proding you cause , whether I agree or not.
You got that right there are no case by case basis i dont want my tax money going to buy drugs. Point being if you want the help then get off the dope PERIOD
Having sat on jury duty and grand jury, I can agree with R1. i can remember a few cases of welfare fraud where drug dealers would have someone elses stamp cards. I think thats what they are called
no case by case evaluation needed. Drugs are illegal. Especially if I (the taxpayer) am paying to support you.
Its a pipe-dream, will never happen. America is an addictted society, some go to dealers and some go to doctors. Stop having babies with no daddy around is a better idea.
I had to piss test to get a job and can be randomly pissed tested at any time. I feel that my tax dollars are paying for their benefits, so YES...piss test everybody!
Anon 11:48- I like the 3 strikes you're out. We have it in our legal system for several things. I like the idea of helping folks out if they are willing to get help with their addictions. Too many times we throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. If someone is willing to get help then we should help them. There are many non-profit rehabs that can help too so not cause yet another financial payout.The thing I would add is,at all cost you take care of the innocent, the children. So many times they are the ones that suffer due to their parents lack of responsibilty.
I think its a great idea, should be a nation wide policy.
Please....let's focus on keeping those in big business accountable and not waste our energy on worrying about food stamp recipients. Considering that over 70 percent of those receiving assistance are women and children under the age of 18...I think this "accountability" is pointless. Let's choose our battles....AIG, crooked politicians.....etc....
Just note that drug testing is expensive which will lead to further spending.
That's where you are looking at it wrong, man. We don't need to spend more money we don't have to make more bogus rules, man. You want to save some righteous tax bucks, and open up some jail cells for some really mean dudes, just decrim the herb, man. Tax it, even. Man, next you are going to say we have to pay consultants to weigh these cats too to determine if they are, like, too fat to continue to get food stamps too, man. Bogus.
12:19pm-consider the gov't would actually create skilled jobs by generating a bigger demand for the tests, not to mention that the tests are random-meaning you could control some of the spending and the price would go up for a while until the market figured out that we need more labs and people to test the results, read the results, etc. Competition would eventually bring the costs down. There are labs that are doing it now anyway for the private sector jobs that require random testing and the DOT requirements for licensing.
Interesting thought, this program.
It's going to be very, very expensive in a lot of ways.
The fact that our military men and women have to have drug tests and people getting government aid do not is appalling to me. We don't believe or trust that people who have taken an oath to defend our country won't use drugs. Why would we believe or trust that random people won't use drugs? Of course I also think that senators and congressmen should take drug tests as well.
12:41 has illustrated a very controversial concept. Anyone?? Anyone?? Bueller?? 'something-DOO' economics?..Anyone?? 'Voodoo economics'.
OK class is over, don't forget to read the next 220 pages in your text for tomorrow's lecture.
They receive taxpayers$$$$ they follow strick guidelines. Drug testing should be mandatory!
Sec 8 housing can already do drug tests.
It's NOT 'something for nothing' - and shouldn't be. The money comes from hardworking taxpayers. It shouldn't go to drug users.
In Michigan, unmarried parents on state medical assitance who have babies have to pay for the birth - there was just a major case there about it. They want to discourage adding to the public assitance payouts.
Personally, I think if you are already on public assistance for food or housing, and get pregnant AFTER you are already on it, you should be dropped from it. It should be an opportunity to get back on your feet and then get OFF assistance, not an opportunity to buy drugs and generate additional income by having kids.
You cant fix Gen-Pop with-out first raising the average I.Q. of the people in it. Good Luck with that. Eventualy 80% of your pay check will go to take care of the people in Gen-Pop, the devide between the two societies is getting wider and somebody has to pay for it. Quess who that somebody is, its me and you.
I'm tired of giving public assistance to anyone who has not paid in (not children, of course). I have worked all my life, but "make too much" for any sort of financial aid for my son to attend college or get any sort of medical assistance.
Why do I have to pay in for someone else to reap the benefits that I cannot.
I dont have a specific case in mind otherwise I would have clarified it.
R1 is right,"at all cost you take care of the innocent, the children" and that's where it might get tricky. If the goal is purely fiscial (saving money), then "we'll take your kids and raise them until you can get clean and stay clean" might not be the right approach as 11:48 said. But if the goal is to help the individual, then maybe so.
I think a 3 strikes (or 2) approach might also be a good useful idea, especially for those with kids or anyone depending on the person receiving the benefit.
Overall, I think the idea would probably cost more money in the long run but it might be offset by any savings from denied benefits.
Definately a lot to consider with this.
I love it. The same Bozos that want less government control of their lives want more government control of others lives. Oh the hypocrisy. Most people on food stamps and government assistance are already embarassed about their situation. Have you ever been in line at the grocery store behind a family that is in need and using them. Look at their faces...look at their kids faces. They are dreading the whole experience. Shame on you for thinking you're holier than thou. Live and let live.
Horse-Crap.
The threat of knowing a drug test is possible might would be enough to deter some. You wouldn't have to drug test but a few for the word to get out that its possible.
My only concern is some prescription drugs will cause a positive result on a drug test. For some like my Father who are disabled and get food stamps, could have medicines that "may" cause a positive. But I guess proof of that kind of drug and that its prescribed would be necessary. I know my Father has a pain medicine that is a Narcotic. Would that cause a positive? I have no clue!
If you are going to live off of the honest working class then you should have to adhere to drug testing. A recent interview with Mexican Officials that are fighting the drug made it very clear that Americas drug problem is the reason for the batlles on the boarder. It is said that the cartels are making in the billions. This money is untaxed and leaving this country. I am in no way saying that welfare receipants are the major problem, but they in large play a huge role in this problem. It is a sad day when other countries look at America as the catalyst for the cartels that exist. We have the most freedom and the highest drug usage in the world.
The corruption that comes with this type of financial gain by criminal means far exceeds anything the American Goverment is doing to fight this war. The 1.4 million dollars pledged to the Mexican Goverment by the U.S. is falling into the hands of the one of the most corrupt Goverments in the world.
As we fight terrorism in the middle east we have turned our heads to Cartels that are responible for killing over five thousand people in one year just in Mexico alone. These numbers do not account for the hundreds if not thousands of deaths here in America that spin off of the illegal drug trade.
As we ponder the issue of drug testing for those that are on welfare. We need to look at our own medical profession that has created thousands of syntheic Herion addicts with the wide use of Oxycotin. Doctors know the pitfalls of this drug but continually prescibe it to those that are obviously addicted.
In the last weeks Salisbury has seen burgalries and brazen acts by those addicted to this drug. The fact that one local drug store had approximately fifty thousand dollars in narcotics stolen speaks volumes as to the wide spread use and demand. One drug store, we have twenty in and around Salisbury.
Doctors arrested for thier role in this should be treated just any other drug dealer and should get the maximum sentence allowed by law.
There have been cases that local criminals posed as law enforcement and went into drug stores and robbed them of this drug the vehicle driven in the crime was operated by a regitered nurse from a local hospital. I think this says it all. The drugs benefits in no way out weigh the good. It was pulled for a reason and due to drug manufacture giving major financial lobbying to our elected congress it came back on the market.
As a twenty-three year law enforcement officer I can not recall any prescribed drug having such a detrimental effect on our society.
I dont know about you but I am angered by the overall attention being given to the matter by Goverment. The funding being given abroad needs to spent in enforcement and education right here in America. I also see a responsibilty by our local goverment to do more in the area of enforcement and awareness. We as Americans have stuck our heads in the sand to long.
I am sorry for the long post, but it is an issue that I see daily and see as a cancer to our local community. I once heard a very respected Law Enforcement Official state " We have lost the war on drugs". I say as long as there is one soldier fighting the war it is not over.
May God watch over us all. To the men and women out there fighting the war keep your heads up and know that your valor will someday be rewarded. To those that continue to destroy this country from within may God have mercy on your souls. I have none for you.
Nice idea, but have fun getting that one past the ACLU. Good try though.
I love it! If you can afford drugs, you can afford food! Same with other things...I see people all the time at gas stations and such buying junk foods with their independence cards and then turning around and buying Cigarettes and Philly Blunts (everybody knows what those are going to be used for because the taste like crap by themselves!) with cash. Let them use their drugs and starve...
I firmly believe they should be doing random drug testing on EVERY recipient of government assistance.
You fail the test, no more money or any other assistance...forever.
No slap on the wrist bull crap. Just put it in place and enforce it from day one.
Make sure EVERY one of them are tested every other month, at a minimum.
If you're gonna get welfare, on my tax dollar,then you should be totally drug free so that you are able to get a job and support yourself. If you're doing drugs, I'm paying for them and I did not approve that expenditure!
BTW who was the brain child that named it an "independence" card
I think that in Maryland, if you have a previous felony and apply for food stamps, you are required for random testing. For the cash program, you are screened and if positive for drugs, you have to enroll in a treatment program. I am not sure about this but have been told this by someone on welfare.
Embarassed over having to use food stamps?Hardly!Just the opposite,most of them are proud as hell of it!With the exception of elderly recipients,every one I see in the store using those dang cards has expensive Baby Phat,Fubu,Hilfiger,etc clothing and is loaded down with enough jewelry to set off a metal detector.I have seen someone go and get a 10 lb pack of ground beef to feed their dog when they are told food stamps will not cover pet food.I have even overheard some wishing that Independence cards covered liquor!WTH?If I have to pee in a cup to get and keep my job then so should freeloaders.Unfair to the poor? Unfair is having multiple kids you cannot and will not feed without taxpayer help.
(PS-my computer crashed over the last few days but I am back with a vengeance!)
Anonymous 6:05- you are right- TCA recipients are screened for drugs, and if the screening is positive, they are referred for treatment. If they are non-compliant with treatment, the benefits aren't lost, but are routed to a representative payee who has been deemed fiscally responsible and who can be required to turn over receipts and proof of expenditures to the local department.
You have to have children in order to get TCA, and there are work activity requirements. Sure, there are some people who take advantage of the system- just like there is always at least one employee on a job that doesn't pull his/her share and who gets away with it anyway.
There are clear legal criteria that must be met in order to take someone's children away from them- and rightly so- it's a protection for all parents. Children can't be removed just because a parent uses drugs, or because parents are living in poverty. And, dare I say it- the cost of placing children in foster care because their parents are on drugs will quickly supercede the economic impact of welfare payments.
Oh- someone mentioned the government should legalize pot- I had a college professor who suggested that he did not think it would ever be legalized in the US- because the government is too greedy, and it would be impossible to gain revenue from taxes on it. It's not like tobacco, which requires a specific soil/farming practice in order to survive- pot can be grown anywhere, by anyone. I'm not certain what I think about his opinion, but I dare say he has a valid point...
Post a Comment