Politics (Warning): Drug-Test for Welfare [Archive]

View Full Version : Politics (Warning): Drug-Test for Welfare

ericatdallas

08-18-2011, 06:15 PM

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-05/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-tanf-welfare-recipients?_s=PM:POLITICS

Florida Gov. Rick Scott on Sunday defended recent legislation that requires adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screenings, saying the law provides "personal accountability."

What took so long and why don't all states do this???

Rep. Alcee Hastings: "If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?"

Sure! I had to do it in EVERY single job I've ever had. I've had to do it three times in one month to get a job and I had to do it three times in one month to keep my job (the random generator really liked me). I do think that if you're selected for random testing, your chance of being selected should go go down (but not be eliminated) after each subsequent time over a certain period of time (so very unlikely to be tested 3 times in a month!).

I'm not judging people who are on government assistance. Heck, I am where I am because the government help pay for my undergraduate degree via grants and cheap loans. They also paid for my MS and now my PhD although that's more of a contract agreement than a handout.

If 15 years ago they said, "To get this Pell grant and cheap college loan you have to submit to random drug testing." I would have said, "Okay!"

...and you know what else? I probably would have gotten more help because half the people who were getting grants (some of my friends) wouldn't have qualified!

kent1963

08-18-2011, 06:27 PM

AKRON AWOL

08-18-2011, 06:33 PM

hey most of us have to take drug tests before we start a job...those who get assistance from the government shouldn't even mind taking them! :) i agree with erica

Cris

brewmaster15

08-18-2011, 08:21 PM

From Florida...http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/drugtestinggeninfo.shtml

English | Espanol | Creole
General Information about the Temporary Cash Assistance Program’s
Drug Testing Policy
Beginning July 1, 2011
Adults applying for Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) must agree to be drug tested and pass the drug test before they can receive cash benefits.

The drug testing policy applies to parents who apply for their children, relatives applying for children they are taking care of if they are asking for help for themselves and teen parents not living with a parent, legal guardian or relative. Children under the age of 18 in the care of an adult will not be drug tested. If we need you to take a test, we will notify you by mail.
Drug testing does not apply to the Food Assistance and Medicaid Programs
If you do not want to be drug tested you may withdraw your TCA application at any time before taking the drug test.
When you apply for TCA you will be asked to review and sign the Drug Testing Information Acknowledgement and Consent Release Form. If you apply using the on-line ACCESS Florida Application the release form is part of the TCA application. If you turn in a paper application you will be mailed a copy of the consent for to sign and return. You must sign this form before ACCESS Florida work on your TCA application. This form will authorize the release of your drug test results by the laboratory to DCF for the purpose of determining your TCA eligibility.
The drug test requires you to give a urine sample and may have up to three steps: an initial screening, a confirmation test if the initial screening shows drugs are present (test positive), and review of the results by a Medical Review Officer (MRO) if certain over-the-counter or prescription medications are detected.
You must pay for the drug test(s) and medical review upfront. If you pass the drug test, your first month’s TCA benefit will be increased to cover the cost of drug test(s) and the medical review if one was done. The cost of drug testing differs depending upon where the test is taken and what you ask the lab to do. There is more information about the types of drug testing services you may purchase further on in this document.
If you fail the initial drug screening you may want to have the lab double check the results (confirmation test) and have a formal medical review completed. These extra services help ensure the accuracy of the drug test results. The drug testing center may be able to tell you how to keep your costs lower if more than one test is needed.
If you are taking prescription, over-the-counter medications, and/or herbal supplements they may affect the results of the drug test, you should consider paying for a “bundled” rate to ensure that the necessary testing and medical reviews are done to avoid a false “failed drug test”.
You may accept the failed test results of the initial screening and choose not to purchase a confirmation test or medical review. A failed test result will be reported to the ACCESS Florida office and used to see if you can receive TCA benefits.
If you fail the drug test, you can not receive TCA for one year from the date of a first failed drug test. Note: If you reapply six or more months after a failed test, you will need to provide proof that you have successfully completed a drug treatment program and pass then a new drug test you may be able to get TCA.
You may be able to receive TCA after the one-year period if you take and pass a new drug test and are otherwise eligible. If you fail that test, you can not receive TCA for three years from the date of the failed drug test result.
If you fail a drug test you may name a family member or other adult to receive the TCA for your children. This person must take and pass a drug test before they can receive the TCA for your children.
Information on a failed drug test will be shared with the Florida Abuse Hotline for review to initiate an assessment or an offer of services.

General Information about the Drug Testing Process

The drug test will look for the following controlled substances:

Amphetamines
Methamphetamines
Cannabinoids (THC)
Cocaine
Phencyclidine (PCP)
Opiates
Barbiturates
Benzodiazepines
Methadone
Propoxyphene

When you get to an approved drug testing collection site or laboratory, you will be asked to show a valid form of photo identification.
You must pay the drug testing collection site and/or laboratory for the cost of the drug testing upfront. Some drug testing sites and labs will let you "bundle" costs of the drug test and medical reviews together, others charge for each service separately.
Under a bundled rate, you would pay a total cost of $28.50 to $40. This includes the cost of the initial drug screen, confirmatory test, and review by a MRO. Paying for these separately could cost you $57 to $161. The bundled rate may be best for someone taking prescription medication for pain, anxiety, or sleep disorders, and those that think they may fail the drug test and will need a doctor to review the results.
Single rate costs may be best for someone that does not take prescription medication and is not taking any of the drugs being tested for. The cost range for the single/initial drug test should run between $10 and $36.
You should save you receipt to turn into your ACCESS worker to prove you have taken the test.
Your TCA worker can not tell you which drug testing collection site or laboratory you should use. A list of all the approved drug testing sites can be found online at http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/drugtestsites.shtml.
Before you give your urine sample you will be asked to sign a consent/release form authorizing the drug testing site to take and test a sample of your urine and give the results to the local ACCESS Florida office.
An agent of drug testing site will collect a sample of your urine. The initial drug test or screening will check to see if any of the above named drugs are present in your urine. The results of the initial drug screening will be completed onsite and available relatively quickly.
If you pass the initial drug screening the drug testing collection site will report this directly to the referring ACCESS office.
If your urine sample shows that you have any of the drugs listed above in your system you will be told about the results and given a choice to have a “confirmation test”. This test can eliminate the possibility of a false-positive. Your urine sample will be sent to an approved laboratory for confirmation testing.
If you chose not to have a confirmation test, the drug testing site will report a failed drug screening to the referring ACCESS office to be used for the determination of eligibility for TCA.
If you chose to have a confirmation test you will have to sign the Drug Testing Consent Form which will let the drug testing site order the confirmation test and the give the results to a Medical Review Officer (MRO) and to the referring ACCESS office.
The MRO will interpret the results of the confirmation test to verify the presence of one of the drugs listed above. If the MRO determines that there is not a legitimate for reason for the presence one of these drugs they will report this as a “positive, confirmed test result” to the local referring ACCESS office.
If there is a verified and legitimate reason for the presence of one of the drugs listed above such as a verified prescription, over-the-counter medication, recent medical procedure, etc they will report this as a “negative, confirmed test result” to the local referring ACCESS office. You may be asked for contact information for your prescribing doctor in order for the MRO to verify your prescription, medical procedure, etc.
The MRO will report the test results to the Department within 5 days of receipt of the confirmation test results from the laboratory.

Treatment Services

If you fail your drug test you will be given information on how to find a treatment program in your area. Information can be found at the following website http://dasis3.samhsa.gov/PrxInput.aspx?STATE=Florida. The ACCESS Florida Program does not pay or reimburse for the cost of drug treatment programs.

It'll be interesting to see how the Florida Dept of Children and families handles those families where a parent tests positive for controlled substances.... Thats alot of additional work and responsibility to be placed on a cash strapped agency.

and on the flip side...I found this article real interesting...

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html

y Stacey Singer

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Updated: 3:13 p.m. Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Posted: 9:02 p.m. Saturday, March 26, 2011

Post a Comment
E-mail
Print
Share
Larger Type

One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling.

Given Solantic's role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott's policy initiatives - this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients - are designed to benefit Scott's bottom line.

The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name.

This raised a groundswell of concern and questions about his health policy initiatives, especially his push to move Medicaid into private HMOs. Solantic does not take Medicaid but does business with private Medicaid HMOs. The questions are growing louder with Scott's executive order on drug testing.

Solantic charges $35 for drug tests. The main customers? People who want advance reassurance they will pass an upcoming drug test for work or parole, and worried parents who bring in wayward teens, Bowling said. Customers can have results sent confidentially to their homes, without involving their employer or insurer.

"The wellness tests have really grown. People want to come in and find out, and then never see us again," Bowling said in an interview last month.

'Elephant in the room'

Scott surprised state employees Tuesday by issuing his executive order for mandatory drug testing of all prospective hires, and random drug testing of current employees, in agencies whose directors he appoints.

In the same announcement, he praised the Florida Legislature for its plans to require all welfare applicants to undergo drug testing as well.

Taken together, the initiatives could affect hundreds of thousands of Floridians, forcing them to submit to drug tests or risk losing their public jobs or benefits.

"Floridians deserve to know that those in public service, whose salaries are paid with taxpayer dollars, are part of a drug-free workplace," Scott said in a statement. "Just as it is appropriate to screen those seeking taxpayer assistance, it is also appropriate to screen government employees."

Until last week, Scott's communications office in Tallahassee had ignored repeated requests for comment on the potential for a conflict of interest. On Friday, as national media began to call as well, the office issued this response:

Any perception that the governor's business interests pose a conflict of interest with his health policies are "baseless and incorrect," said Scott's deputy communications director, Brian Hughes.

Privately, one Scott official acknowledged that every time the governor discusses health policy, his urgent care business would be "the elephant in the room."

Shortly before he was inaugurated, Scott's lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife's name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.

During the election campaign, he had estimated the worth of his Solantic holdings at $62 million. Jacksonville-based Solantic has 32 clinics statewide, including two in Palm Beach County, and plans rapid growth and an eventual initial public offering, according to company documents.

Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott's ownership to his wife's trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues.

"He owned the company and transferred it into his wife's name," Rodwin said. "It's a conflict of interest."

But while it may rise to the level of impropriety, Florida legal experts said, it likely does not rise to the level of illegality.

Advice for the governor

Scott would be wise to specify that Solantic be left out of any government drug testing contracts, advised Bruce Rogow, a Nova Southeastern law professor who has defended elected officials accused of public corruption. So far, that hasn't happened.

"If I were the governor and I wanted there to be drug testing, and I owned a company that did a lot of drug testing, I would tell agencies to leave out my company," Rogow said.

He said he does not think it's illegal. "It's just a question of propriety."

Former federal prosecutor and current Palm Beach County Ethics Commissioner Bruce Rein*hart agreed. He added that recent case law involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and former Hollinger International Chairman Conrad Black had significantly weakened the federal honest services fraud law that was used to convict ex-Palm Beach County Commissioners Tony Masilotti, Warren Newell and Mary McCarty.

The ex-commissioners* were found guilty of clandestinely using their public position for personal financial benefit. After the Supreme Court decided last summer that proof of "palpable conduct" such as bribery or kickbacks is required for an honest services fraud conviction, such cases are harder to prove.

"There's a lot of things that someone in the public might perceive as improper, sleazy, corrupt, whatever adjective you want to throw on it, but they are not criminal," said Reinhart, now a criminal defense attorney.

"The remedy is political. If the governor is doing things that are 100 percent legal but the citizens of Florida think it's unseemly, they have the absolute right not to vote for him in the future."

Hughes, Scott's deputy communications director, had few details on how the drug testing policy will be carried out. He said the executive order is simply a policy guidance document, and more specifics will come as agencies develop detailed testing plans.

How much will it cost?

Agencies have 60 days to write their policies. Testing then starts immediately for prospective hires. Random testing of employees starts 60 days after they're notified of the policies.

While welfare recipients will have to pay for their drug tests out of their pockets to receive state aid under the bill Scott supports, his executive order is silent on the subject of cost.

Hughes said it's not yet known precisely how many employees are affected, what tests will be used or how much they will cost. Though Scott campaigned on reducing government spending, the costs of conducting the drug tests, even if they reach $2 million or $3 million a year, are worth it for the peace of mind they will give taxpayers, Hughes said.

But threats of litigation are likely to push the cost to taxpayers even higher.

Discussions about cost are starting, Hughes said.

"It's simply a policy guidance starting point," he said. "The governor believes that it is in the best interest of Florida's taxpayers to have a healthy and productive state workforce.

Hmmmm... but have no worries....They cleared him of conflict of interest.

hey heres a thought...
Mandatory drug testing for politicians..its a no brainer right... funny thing is when tried..it failed..
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=494

Random drug tests for politicians were also introduced in Louisiana but in 2000, the US Supreme Court upheld a ruling in which the policy was struck down by the state’s court, effectively ending the policy in the USA.

Its an interesting article, read the pros and cons.:)

more on testing politicians..
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/testing-politicians-for-drugs.html

Libertarians had their first win in the Supreme Court when they successfully sued to strike down a Georgia law that required all politicians be tested for drugs before being allowed on the ballot. The Supreme Court ruled this law unconstitutional on April 15, 1997.

Walker Chandler, who ran for lieutenant governor in Georgia in 1994, took and passed the required drug test, but filed suit questioning the validity of the law. The legal battle took three years to get to the Supreme Court. Chandler lost twice before making it to the Supreme Court, once in the district court and once in the 11th Circuit Court.
Supreme Sayings

“[I]t is … immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

—Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States in 1928

The Supreme Court finally agreed to hear his appeal on January 14, 1996. His argument was based on the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against “unreasonable” searches. Chandler believed there should be some limit to “suspicionless drug testing.” The Supreme Court agreed with him voting 8 to 1 to declare Georgia's law unconstitutional.

Justice Ginsburg wrote the near unanimous decision for the Court, which was joined by all but Chief Justice Rehnquist, who dissented. In her opinion, she wrote:

“By requiring candidates for public office to submit to drug testing, Georgia displays its commitment to the struggle against drug abuse. The suspicionless tests, according to respondents, signify that candidates, if elected, will be fit to serve their constituents free from the influence of illegal drugs. But Georgia asserts no evidence of a drug problem among the State's elected officials, those officials typically do not perform high risk, safety sensitive tasks, and the required certification immediately aids no interdiction effort. The need revealed, in short, is symbolic, not 'special,' as that term draws meaning from our case law … where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as 'reasonable'—for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings … But where, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged.”

Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissent called the near unanimous opinion a “strange holding,” and wrote:

“Under normal Fourth Amendment analysis, the individual's expectation of privacy is an important factor in the equation. But here, the Court perversely relies on the fact that a candidate for office gives up so much privacy—'[c]andidates for public office … are subject to relentless scrutiny—by their peers, the public and the press,' …—as a reason for sustaining a Fourth Amendment claim. The Court says, in effect, that the kind of drug test for candidates required by the Georgia law is unnecessary, because the scrutiny to which they are already subjected by reason of their candidacy will enable people to detect any drug use on their part … The privacy concerns ordinarily implicated by urinalysis drug testing are 'negligible,' … when the procedures used in collecting and analyzing the urine samples are set up 'to reduce the intrusiveness' of the process. Under the Georgia law, the candidate may produce the test specimen at his own doctor's office, which must be one of the least intrusive types of urinalysis drug tests conceivable. But although the Court concedes this, it nonetheless manages to count this factor against the State, because with this kind of test the person tested will have advance notice of its being given, and will therefore be able to abstain from drug use during the necessary period of time. But one may be sure that if the test were random—and therefore apt to ensnare more users—the Court would then fault it for its intrusiveness.”

In both cases discussed in this section, suits were filed by people, who even though they were not charged with a crime, believed they were victims of an unreasonable invasion of their privacy in violation of their rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. In the next section, we'll explore the role the Fourth Amendment plays when evidence is being collected for the purpose of proving criminal activity.

Read more: The Supreme Court: Testing Politicians for Drugs — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/testing-politicians-for-drugs.html#ixzz1VQes17r5

Hey theres also a petition to get those politicians tested...
http://www.petitiononline.com/dhr4gf34/petition.html

so where does it end?

This politician .. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/08/02/long-island-lawmaker-wants-parents-to-drug-test-teens-annually/ , Assemblyman Joseph Saladino (R-Massapequa), wants to have all teens tested for drugs...

Assemblyman Joseph Saladino (R-Massapequa) has introduced a bill that would require parents of high school students to give their children annual drug tests.

“If they dont do it, the student would not be allowed into school,” Saladino told CBS 2′s Jennifer McLogan.

Then theres the wing nuts that want to test all recipients of unemployment compensation as well because you know they are using that money after losing their jobs in this recession to buy drugs.

I just find it interesting that we can test everyone else for drugs but not our politicians? Are not our political leaders technically on the dole most of the time?:) Sorry...I disagree with mandatory drug testing as a principal when it applies to anyone...except those that have been arrested for drug use...why....because we have legal system thats based on "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty, prove to me you are innocent" The problem is back in the 80's when drug tested started it wasn't fought hard enough and people didn't see the risk to a personal liberty we had...and now its gone...unless you are a politician.

-al

ps... it won't solve the problem as applied to welfare recipients, IMO...but it may make some people feel better and it may make the apps for welfare go down...but other costs will go up....because it does not deal with the main issue.... poverty and its root causes.

terps

08-18-2011, 09:37 PM

It's not unconstitutional. The state is not forcing people to get tested against their will. You only get tested if you opt for the government handout. If you don't want to get tested, don't take the handouts.

I agree with kent1963. The war on drugs is a total failure and a huge burden to the taxpayer. All drugs should be legalized.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

brewmaster15

08-18-2011, 11:31 PM

It's not unconstitutional. The state is not forcing people to get tested against their will. You only get tested if you opt for the government handout. If you don't want to get tested, don't take the handouts.

define "Government handout" please?
...welfare?
.....foodstamps?
.....assisted living for the mentally disabled?
.....medicaid?
...social security?
....unemployment compensation?
....disability ?
....Medicare?
....farm subsidies?
......federal grants?
.....International aid?
...tax credits and write offs for the businesses and the rich?
....tarp and other bailout related money?

or does it only apply to those looking for welfare and trying to survive any way they can?

Sorry but if you are going to justify testing ...then test everyone receiving money from the gov...not just the poorest segment of our population. Start at the top with our decision makers

JMO,
al

ericatdallas

08-18-2011, 11:34 PM

I am torn on this because I don't want to pay for others recreation, however I believe most drug prevention and drug enforcement is a waste of money. I don't really care what others do in the privacy of there own homes as long as it doesn't effect others.I don't see any difference between this and drinking or smoking. That said I drive a truck for a living and am required to submit to random testing at any time. I have 15 hrs to report after notification or I lose my CDL and my job. I did vote yes however because as I said I don't want to pay for it.

Actually I agree with you. I'm totally against drug use, but I'm against the draconian efforts that we do to regulate it. People argue that if we let people have unlimited access to drugs, people will OD and ruin their lives. How many people ruin their lives anyway? They do the same with legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. They also argue that there will be innocent bystanders who get hurt because someone high on drugs kills someone in auto accidents. Well, we have laws for that too.

Then the question comes --- how many people lose their lives in gang wars over drug territory here and across the border? How much money do we funnel to drug cartels and terrorist organizations? I don't think keeping people away from a drugs protect us.

And then there are some drugs we regulate purely to protect the individual and I think that's worse than regulating drugs that protect society (i.e. regulating alcohol and tobacco prevents people from infringing on the rights of others). However, drugs like speed, especially in college students, are actually drugs to make them more productive. It's not healthy, but let's stop telling people what's okay and no okay to do.

So why do I agree with this law? Like you, I don't think I need to pay for it. The next reason... it's because I'm just against government handouts and I'll take any measure to reduce it. Let's get rid of the small percentage that abuse drugs that way there's more money for the people who actually need it or more money back to the tax payers. Let's use the money for people who are desperately trying to find work but can't feed their children due to just "rough" times like when a mother of 3 loses her husband, or a man who loses his limbs from a terrible accident, etc. I'm not saying all drug users are unproductive, but if you're an able-bodied person on government assistance, you're probably not productive because of drugs.

Also, back to the education assistance. Like I said before, plenty of the people I knew were both drug users and getting grants/loans from the government. They were also heavy alcohol users. On average (this is not an objective quantification either), people I knew on drugs were more likely to fail college (not all did). On average, the ones using drugs were less successful (that's also not always true because I knew some that became well-respected professionals as well). But lets get our limited resources where they have the greatest impact and that's law-abiding citizens (whether we agree with the law or not, it's still the law) and people who have the greatest chance for success.

I just find it interesting that we can test everyone else for drugs but not our politicians? Are not our political leaders technically on the dole most of the time?:) Sorry...I disagree with mandatory drug testing as a principal when it applies to anyone...except those that have been arrested for drug use...why....because we have legal system thats based on "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty, prove to me you are innocent" The problem is back in the 80's when drug tested started it wasn't fought hard enough and people didn't see the risk to a personal liberty we had...and now its gone...unless you are a politician.

I agree that politicians should be tested. In fact, I would say they have more of an impact on public safety than a policeman or a fireman. Yes, the policeman tries to catch the murderer from killing more people and the fireman pulls kids out of burning buildings. Ultimately though, who decides how many fireman and policeman are on the streets. Who says how much money the policeman gets paid to catch the criminal and what kind of equipment the fireman has to stop the fire. Who has the power to send hundreds of THOUSANDS of soldiers with sophisticated killing machines to remove foreign governments, establish new governments, change entire countries, and ... kill whoever stands against those interests. So yeah, I think politicians should be held to a higher standard than the standards (laws) they make for us.

However, I think without the passage of this law in Florida, and I would certainly support a similar law in Texas, I could come to a compromise on that as well. Such as, those who have been caught using drugs will have to submit to random drug tests in the future (even when they're not in probation) to continue receiving aid.

The heart of the issue for me though, is less the drugs themselves, but people saying it's unconstitutional. It's not an unlawful search-and-seizure because you have the option not to accept it. There's no constitutional amendment that requires the government to provide for you when you fail to provide for yourself. If you want 'free' money, then we as a society should be able to stipulate the terms. I feel, as a member of a society, that if I am going to share my resources for the greater good, I should be able to collectively decide with the other members of the society what those requirements are.

There's no unlawful seizure here, it's totally lawful and the money handed out is not the recipients to begin with. The problem is, is it unlawful search? Why would it be? You can decline it if you don't want government aid. If guy is growing pot in his basement is getting robbed for his drugs, he has a right to refuse police help when offered, but if accepts, he runs the risk of having his pot seized from the cops and being arrested.

The choice is all up to the individual. Take drugs, get no money. Get money, not take drugs.

I also think we're missing most important part of this... kids are hurt no matter what. BUT, if a drug-using parent is receiving government assistance for inability to pay for their children's food, how are they affording drugs?

The government is pulling random people to do drug tests. Society is setting a requirement to receive limited resources. When I go for a loan, people search my financial background to make sure that I'm an acceptable risk. When I apply for college, people search my academic background and give me a test to make sure I'm an acceptable academic risk for the limited educational resources. When we loan money to foreign governments, we dictate measures for them to get back on their feet. When we bailout corporations we replace their board, officers, and we setup standards of behavior. When we give money to disaster relief, we stipulate that money can be spent on food and other essentials but not on weapons.

we set all sorts of standards everyday to distribute limited resources. This is just another standard for the same resource. Take it or leave, it's all the same for the rest of us who have to accept the burden.

ps... it won't solve the problem as applied to welfare recipients, IMO...but it may make some people feel better and it may make the apps for welfare go down...but other costs will go up....because it does not deal with the main issue.... poverty and its root causes.

I'm not for completely eliminating government welfare. In fact, I think there is certain sound logic in providing money to the poor to keep a stable society. There are always going to be people who are poor because of their own choosing or because of inability. I'm not for random drug testing of people on the streets either, but the root cause of some poverty is drug abuse. Providing money to drug users would be like providing a new liver to an alcoholic. That money and liver can be better utilized elsewhere.

ericatdallas

08-19-2011, 12:06 AM

define "Government handout" please?
YES...welfare?
YES.....foodstamps?
YES*1.....assisted living for the mentally disabled?
YES.....medicaid?
YES*1...social security?
NO*....unemployment compensation?
YES*1....disability ?
YES....Medicare?
YES....farm subsidies?
YES......federal grants?
YES.....International aid?
NO*2...tax credits and write offs for the businesses and the rich?
YES....tarp and other bailout related money?

[/QUOTE]

Okay, I think I kind of addressed some of the criteria earlier. I'm not speaking for terps, but this is what I think...

Government handout is when you're taking money from contributing members of society and giving it to non-contributing members of society. I don't necessarily think that's bad. I think at times, we have to protect those less vulnerable. I think at times, it serves our best interest to protect those the most vulnerable (i.e. children). That's where YES*1 comes in. I also feel that we should be able to set criteria for qualifying for it, which we do. I also believe that we should be able to set a standard of "you must follow the law". I also think it's reasonable to test that when testing is able to protect you in other parts of your life. Sort of, "you can't be on assistance if you have kiddie porn." Well, okay, but how do you test it? Do you search everyone's computer and force them to decrypt all their information for someone to see. That's when the test becomes so intrusive that you invade a person's privacy - i.e. you don't find illegal images but you do find pornographic images of their partner. The thing about drug testing is that it's pretty limited in scope and still hits the target. Yes, there are going to be grey areas that I haven't addressed, and that's where public debate, courts, and politicians come in. There's got to be pushing on both sides to come to an acceptable middle.

This is where NO*2 comes in... the tax credits are a reduction of contributions. It's a handout when the disbursement is greater than the contribution. That's where the bailout comes in... that -IS- a handout. Does it fall under "beneficial to society" --- maybe. But I still consider it a handout. We do have requirements for government bailouts and international aid.

International aid (all forms) is a handout. One that's necessary because we are good neighbors, stable friendly governments are good for our national interests, but we have requirements for how that money is spent (usually with tons of loopholes, but nonetheless, requirements there are).

Farm subsidies, while I don't agree with them either, but I do understand why they exist and how they might help us, are still handout. There are also requirements for those.

Unemployment is actually paid for by corporations. Extended benefits are also. If we start taking more money out than we're getting in, then yes, it's a government handout. Either way, I have no problems with setting requirements.

So now that I've defined my definition of handout... the next question is, why don't we drug test for those.

1) Can't drug test corporations and countries
2) There has to be reasonable belief that drug abuse will reduce or eliminate the benefit of providing the aid. i.e. requiring it for education grants and welfare recipients. Food stamps fall under this as well because everyone has to eat. You give them food, they have more money to buy drugs. You feed their children at school for breakfast and lunch, drug using parents can afford more drugs, but the benefit is assured to the primary beneficiary. Besides, the benefit in this case, goes to the child and not to the parent. I used to volunteer at the food bank and there were instances of parents stealing the food from the donated food, so we used to package the food in small containers so teachers could give the food to the kids in small quantities and eat it before their parents stole it. Sad, but true.

Federal grants are too generic because they go to a lot of different people. For education grants, sure. For grants to public aid organizations such as PBS TV... how and no.

Again, yes, there will be holes. The world is full of gray. Some people who should get aid will refuse to get drug tested. Some people who are drug tested and pass will be drug users. Some people that should be drug tested won't be but others that shouldn't be will be. That's what politics and voting are about.

In the end, the main concern is that as a society, Florida decided to set requirements in how their limited resources are distributed. Is it constitutional, that's for the US supreme court to decide, but I say yes. Society (or at least, the elected members of our society) has determined to pay my salary because I serve a "public" good (I'm sure there will be people to debate that, but that can be another thread) and it's been decided that it's in the interest of our society that I need to take a drug test to collect on that salary. So a mandatory drug test is as constitutional for someone collecting welfare as it is for me to collect a salary. It's as constitutional for them to take a drug test as much as it is for the society to decide to take away my limited resources (salary) and distribute it to other people. It's also my right not to collect a salary.

Ryan

08-19-2011, 12:41 AM

Rick Scott is going to benefit financially from these drug tests and I honestly think that's what a lot of it boils down to. I did not vote for him, but a lot of Floridians did and now they think he's doing a horrible job. I have to laugh when things like this get passed by a Republican/Tea Party politician -- isn't the idea that government is too big and invasive? If so, isn't this whole drug testing thing adding a lot more time, effort, and paperwork (and therefore cost) to the procedure? And why aren't they for legalizing drugs? Think of all the money we spend incarcerating and prosecuting people on drug charges, doing busts, infrared helicopter fly-overs, etc. etc. etc. If you were truly for smaller government, you'd be trying to cut things out of the government rather than adding more things for the government to monitor/control.

I personally do not do drugs, but it's not for me to tell others that they cannot. Everyone has free will and they are responsible (and in turn will be held accountable) for their decisions, so I say it should be legalized. End the drug wars here. I see 15 year old kids in my city posting about selling drugs on Facebook. There are pictures of them posing with guns, pot plants, and stacks of money, talking about having to kill anyone who tries to take over their dealing areas, etc. I honestly think that would all disappear if it were legally obtainable. These kids get involved in this stuff because they think it's easy money. I don't see any kids trying to make bank off of cigarettes or alcohol.

It's also troubling to me when people automatically assume that government assistance means you're a non-contributing member of society or you're just sitting at home collecting money. I have members of my family who have kids and work but still get assistance for food stamps and Medicaid. I realize there are some who take advantage of the system, but you cannot paint everyone with the same broad brush.

ericatdallas

08-19-2011, 01:08 AM

You know who would benefit most from legalizing drugs? Other than the government through taxes? The people in the Aquaculture and Hydroponics business. Heck, the stuff is already bought quite readily to grow indoors in people's basement BUT now you can hire a lot of those industry professionals to provide the expertise. This country would create so many jobs as engineers and scientist spun up research to optimize growth, engineer new strains, and develop better equipment - aquaculture and hydroponics would gain from this too in the way of expertise, increased investment, and technology development.

Heck, the hobbyist can benefit too. A lot of us with planted tanks might be able to make incremental improvements to grow the stuff and we have a steady nutrient rich supply of fertilizer :)

Anyway... I would totally support ending the "war" on drugs.

I do agree with you Ryan that this actually is more invasive. However, I stand by the fact that this is totally voluntary. It's also not that difficult to attach an additional form.

I thought his company said they wouldn't bid on any state contracts. I'm also not entirely convince that a competitor can't drive down prices. In fact, a lot of people already get drug tested and the company probably did just fine before the law was passed. In fact, Florida, as well as the Federal government (along with many states) all have laws that give preferential contract selection to companies with drug-testing policies. So for companies to get a greater access to government money (I think in a way, that addresses Al's question about government handouts above), they have to submit their employees to some type of drug monitoring program. If they don't have one, it doesn't necessarily mean they won't get the contract, just that given two identical (or near identical) bids, they would select the drug free one.

Q. What affects the wait time prior to the transplant?
A. Your wait time can depend on multiple factors such as your blood type, patient size and the severity of your illness. The wait time could be from days to years.

During the waiting period, you will continue to follow up with Ohio State transplant physicians so we may update your Lung Allocation Score (LAS) every two-three months. You must submit to random drug, nicotine, alcohol screening. You must be reachable at all times, usually with a cell phone.

http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/patientcare/healthcare_services/transplant/types/lung/lung_transplant_faq/Pages/index.aspx

I use this analogy because it's about getting a limited resource to those who are best able to utilize it and NOT waste it.

Ryan

08-19-2011, 01:19 AM

We joke all the time that we could make a lot of money if pot were legalized. I'm from rural central Florida where we grew citrus for years, then switched to decorative ferns and foliage for the florist industry. Citrus Canker wiped out a lot of our citrus and the fern industry has really taken a hit in the last decade or so, so you have a ton of small fern-growers who've now gone out of business and everyone in our little farming community is struggling. A few of the local universities like University of Florida have even been doing research to try and help find profitable crops for our local farmers to grow. They've considered Muscadine grapes for wine, sturgeon farming, and other various things.

Basically, we're all sitting on hundreds (or thousands) of acres of irrigated land with natural canopy, and it turns out that pot grows perfectly here.

ericatdallas

08-19-2011, 01:30 AM

jarret8x

08-19-2011, 06:58 AM

I have a couple thoughts on this topic. One thing about making it legal. I think to make it legal they would need to have done sort of instant testing like they do go drinking with a BAC for alcohol. Then I wouldn't mind it being legal.
And for the welfare drug testing. I would love to see this. I do a lot of work in the boston housing projects. When I am down there I see a lot of bad stuff that all you guys think that happens. But the thing is you guys dont see the extent of it like I do. And I only work there during the day nevermind when all the people come out at night. Doing lead paint removal in these apartments I see people doing crack, shooting up, smoking pot. Its so bad that one day these people had nothing better to do but go right outside their apartment door in a common hallway and smoke weed all day. It's really sad to see our government in such a poor financial state and see so many people abusing the system.
Granted I'm also working in some of the worst projects in the state of mass. But still I would say that atleast 75% of the people I see are abusing the system. It's sick. I love the idea of welfare but the abuse is unreal. This coming from someone who has witnessed innocent little kids getting killed while going to get their mother mothers day card because he got caught in the middle of a turf war only across the street where I was working. Then another young teen get killed in front of the police station because someone stole his bike. So the kid told his mother she reported it to the police because they knew who did it. A couple days after they reported it a 14 yo and a 16yo preceded to kill the kid while he was on his brothers scooter. It's sick and I think this would help some of this.

End of rant

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

brewmaster15

08-19-2011, 08:12 AM

Eric I keep hearing its not something that will be forced on welfare recipients, they have a choice...so thats okay and it means its not unconstitutional.... what choice does a mother of several young children really have when she has been abandoned by her deadbeat husband? Its always easy to focus on the obvious offenders in the system...so to get them you take away the rights and dignity of the law abiding citizens .....Thats a very slippery slope and sets a dangerous precendent.

A few posts ago I gave an example of one lawmaker who wants to drug test all kids or they dont get to go to school and graduate...again you take away the rights and dignity of a large group because of a percieved problem with a small group.

Welfare has always been a political target and a scapegoat as it targets a segment of the population that is least represented, Its something that allows for a dialogue to occur and gives a politician an appearance of doing something meaningful without focusing on the actual big ticket budget items like the military and Social Security, IMO

There is a problem with drug abuse by some welfare recipients, I personally know others that there is not...these people have no other recourse and would work if they could. This law actually stereotypes them all as drug users though and lumps them together. I'm all for ways to reduce drug abuse , but this won't do it.....people use drugs because they feel better when they are on them...because it alters the perception of their world....If you want to decrease that, change the reality of that perception.

I have a very strong distrust when we lose a freedom ,even a little one under the guise of it being "necessary" or "best for society".These losses build on one another and they become bigger and bigger.This has been going on here in the USA since the country was founded, but the last century its really gotten serious...sadly its easy to see why...we allow a loss to a freedom occur when it does not affect us directly immediately...too many other things to worry about.

Last note...These drug testing laws don't affect just those stereotypical people in urban jungles...medicaid recipients are also targeted by it ...and that would mean all those elderly in nursing and retirement homes need to be tested.. aside from being a disgraceful way to treat our elderly, it poses a lot of questions as to how to deal with positives in a population set that is heavily medicated.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/2011/01/17/bill-filed-to-require-drug-tests-for-medicaid-welfare-recipients/

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/04/22/opinion/april-23-2011-medicaid-drug-testing-logging-jobs-abortion/

http://www.whnt.com/news/whnt-alabama-eyes-mandatory-drug-testing-for-medicaid-recepients-20110810,0,981386.story

So we have gone from testing that one section of the the population to states considering testing an even more broad group....where does it end?

okay, I'm done here.
-al

TURQ64

08-19-2011, 08:56 AM

Well, I won't beat around the bush here..Before retirement, I have always had to jump thru the drug test hoops doing critical work on nukes, etc. My union now requires passing the tests at the dispatch level, not the employers anymore..I used to do a lot of drinking, smoking, etc. So, I always had to 'study' for the drug tests, cleaning out even at superintendant level....The drug wars and all the insurance co.'s are a bunch of hooey, and a huge waste of money...most all of the smaller sports medicine and emergency clinics nationwide have all become pee test centers, cashing in on the regs......And, it's all pretty one-sided..in states that have medical marijuana laws, you still fail, even tho they'll allow you to be full of codiene if the doc perscribed it...In the past I've also had to run off some of the best hands in America in favor of some worthless, stop sign holding 'neighborhood hire' because I knew personally that a random would catch the skilled hands....

jarret8x

08-19-2011, 12:16 PM

I think people are taking my post wrong. I like welfare but I just see how much it is abused almost everyday of my life. It is pretty bad that in these housing apartments they have nicer things than I do in my house making 70,000+ a year.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

jcardona1

08-19-2011, 01:31 PM

terps

08-19-2011, 01:40 PM

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=192598

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026964/Susanne-Emans-bid-worlds-fattest-woman-52st-mother-2-supersizing.html

brewmaster15

08-19-2011, 01:54 PM

I'll ask again....

define "Government handout" please?
...welfare?
.....foodstamps?
.....assisted living for the mentally disabled?
.....medicaid?
...social security?
....unemployment compensation?
....disability ?
....Medicare?
....farm subsidies?
......federal grants?
.....International aid?
...tax credits and write offs for the businesses and the rich?
....tarp and other bailout related money?

or does it only apply to those looking for welfare and trying to survive any way they can?

Sorry but if you are going to justify testing ...then test everyone receiving money from the gov...not just the poorest segment of our population. Start at the top with our decision makers

JMO,
al

Laborator

08-19-2011, 02:11 PM

IMO folks who makes statements about people who applies for govt assistance and described as "non contributing members of society" and should be drug tested prior to receiving aid is very insensitive and ignorant.

I hope you don't get into a situation where the place you work decides that they no longer need your services and therefore lays you off and you find yourself seeking employment with no luck, and maybe your the occasional pot smoker and you get denied assistance for testing positive.

Wow! To much Fox News.

---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.764910,-122.403268

ericatdallas

08-19-2011, 02:23 PM

I know and see too many lazy parasites abuse the system. I'm all for making drug tests mandatory. Like someone mentioned earlier, if you don't want to be drug tested, get off your lazy butt and support YOURSELF. Which reminds me of a post I read on a different forum regarding this very same topic. The sad part is, that this applies to A LOT of welfare recipients out there. If you think otherwise, maybe you should open your eyes a bit:

This isn't relevant to this thread, but to add to your story, I used to work at a grocery store and there were so many times people would try to return baby formula for cash or exchange it for luxuries (i.e. junk food, cigarettes, steak). I always wondered if there was some poor baby that didn't get his/her formula or why is this person getting formula they don't need when there are probably people who really need it. Fortunately, we had a policy (and I think it might have been a law) that didn't allow us to refund or exchange for items purchased with food stamps. We also didn't take formula for exchange without a receipt. Even then, we threw out all legitimate exchanged formula for safety reasons (in case they weren't properly stored for liability reasons).

Eric I keep hearing its not something that will be forced on welfare recipients, they have a choice...so thats okay and it means its not unconstitutional.... what choice does a mother of several young children really have when she has been abandoned by her deadbeat husband? Its always easy to focus on the obvious offenders in the system...so to get them you take away the rights and dignity of the law abiding citizens .....Thats a very slippery slope and sets a dangerous precendent.

That's the gray area we need to work out. There is a point where is makes less sense. There will always be a logical argument or illogical claim somewhere saying we need to do it for everyone. Random drug testing on the street maybe even. But that's where the push comes in. I'm setting a requirement for giving out aid. If I'm a lone voice, then fine, no requirements. If there's a majority of people supporting it, then there should be a requirement. The question is, why is it unconstitutional? The slippery slope argument also comes in with: Just because we do it here we're going to keep doing it until everyone is randomly drug tested. Well, that's possible, but I can flip the slippery slope argument and say that if we don't drug test people here, where does it end, government subsidized cocaine? It works both ways IMO. Dissent, counter, push, equilibrium.

Welfare has always been a political target and a scapegoat as it targets a segment of the population that is least represented, Its something that allows for a dialogue to occur and gives a politician an appearance of doing something meaningful without focusing on the actual big ticket budget items like the military and Social Security, IMO

I think what we're talking about is a subset of the solution to Social Security. I'm biased on military spending. I don't necessarily think we spend too much, but we spend too much on the wrong things. Without going further, I'm just saying: GPS, Internet, aerospace, and many industries were bought, paid for, and discovered with defense dollars. That's not to say the military should get a blank check to buy all the toys they want, just that, not all of it goes into buying bullets and there is value in spinoff technologies. In fact, many defense research contracts look into how R&D efforts can be used in the private sector (dual purpose technologies).

There is a problem with drug abuse by some welfare recipients, I personally know others that there is not...these people have no other recourse and would work if they could. This law actually stereotypes them all as drug users though and lumps them together. I'm all for ways to reduce drug abuse , but this won't do it.....people use drugs because they feel better when they are on them...because it alters the perception of their world....If you want to decrease that, change the reality of that perception.

I have someone in my family that is on welfare. She spends a lot of her money on cigarettes. However, she would still qualify since she doesn't use illegal drugs. I don't agree with her lifestyle, I don't think she should get money for cigarettes though either, but I do feel she should be tested for drugs. I do think college students should be too. It's not about the morality of drugs. It's about putting money where it should be. I don't ask for handouts to fund my poker bracelet dreams.

I have a very strong distrust when we lose a freedom ,even a little one under the guise of it being "necessary" or "best for society".These losses build on one another and they become bigger and bigger.This has been going on here in the USA since the country was founded, but the last century its really gotten serious...sadly its easy to see why...we allow a loss to a freedom occur when it does not affect us directly immediately...too many other things to worry about.

I understand what you're saying. I agree with your first sentence. TSA comes to mind. There's no perfect solution. There's just tolerable solutions. I think if you're going to take some of my freedom (to decide how to spend my money) I should be able to ask you to qualify it.

Last note...These drug testing laws don't affect just those stereotypical people in urban jungles...medicaid recipients are also targeted by it ...and that would mean all those elderly in nursing and retirement homes need to be tested.. aside from being a disgraceful way to treat our elderly, it poses a lot of questions as to how to deal with positives in a population set that is heavily medicated.

Don't most elderly in nursing homes get tested anyway for medical reasons (sugar levels, cholesterol, etc)? What's one more test on the same sample? I'm not saying defnitively that I think they should be tested. I just wouldn't have a problem with it as long as there was a reasonable method and cause. What's reasonable? Push and equilibrium. Somewhere in the middle that is the most palatable to the most people. There's always going to be tail ends that disagree. Imagine a Guassian, it's like letting the 5% tail end of the population rule the other 90%. We need to stop that. There's got to be something in the middle that the 51% live with. The question is: Does my right to expect our limited resources be distributed in equitable ways deny someone else's right to unlawful search and seizure?

15So we have gone from testing that one section of the the population to states considering testing an even more broad group....where does it end?

That's the slippery slope argument and it works both ways. You're implying that just because we do action A, it will lead to action B, which will lead to action C then D, and so forth. That's not always the case. In fact, there is always push back when irrational events occur and at some point, whether it's B or C, someone is going to say, "Okay, it stops here."

A prime physical example that could happen in the real world is that the population will double every X number of years until we have infinite number of people. Obviously, that's not the case. There are real world obstacles and limits that prevent that from happening (space, food, energy, etc).

Your post and opinion to this requirement is an example of those forces working. At a certain point, more and more people will say, "well even if this is 'legal' to do, it's irrational to do so."

I still don't necessarily discount that you could be right. I just don't think you've convinced me of that yet :)

jcardona1

08-19-2011, 03:13 PM

IMO folks who makes statements about people who applies for govt assistance and described as "non contributing members of society" and should be drug tested prior to receiving aid is very insensitive and ignorant.

I hope you don't get into a situation where the place you work decides that they no longer need your services and therefore lays you off and you find yourself seeking employment with no luck, and maybe your the occasional pot smoker and you get denied assistance for testing positive.

Wow! To much Fox News.

---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.764910,-122.403268

I can't speak for everybody, but if I did find myself in a situation where I was laid off and desperately needed help, I would 1) not turn to drugs and 2) have no problem being drug tested in order to receive assistance because afterall, I had to get drug tested for my job. The small percent of honest hard working Americans who are down on their luck and find them self in a difficult financial situation are overshadowed by the lazy worthless people that abuse the system. I know several of these people myself. One person I know has been a government leech for years and literally said to me "Why should I work? I can get everything paid for." That's not the type of people that deserve assistance.

If they can waste my tax dollars, I, as a tax payer, have the right to say what I want.

jcardona1

08-19-2011, 03:16 PM

This isn't relevant to this thread, but to add to your story, I used to work at a grocery store and there were so many times people would try to return baby formula for cash or exchange it for luxuries (i.e. junk food, cigarettes, steak). I always wondered if there was some poor baby that didn't get his/her formula or why is this person getting formula they don't need when there are probably people who really need it. Fortunately, we had a policy (and I think it might have been a law) that didn't allow us to refund or exchange for items purchased with food stamps. We also didn't take formula for exchange without a receipt. Even then, we threw out all legitimate exchanged formula for safety reasons (in case they weren't properly stored for liability reasons).

I too worked at a grocery store, and saw abuse of the system. Not to mention people at the door trying to sell foodstamps for cash, at a discounted price.

jcardona1

08-19-2011, 03:18 PM

I'll ask again....

define "Government handout" please?

That's easy. When you are physically and mentally able to work, but choose to sit on your butt all day and reproduce like roaches, and then blame all of your problems on the "man" and the injustices of society.

Works for me.

Sean Buehrle

08-19-2011, 05:38 PM

Forget it, the war on drugs is big business and will never end.
Even marijuana will never ever be legalized in this country, ain't gonna happen, know why? Cause they make 10 times more money jailing people and running them through the system than any tax could ever create .
The prisons are I'm guessing here, probably 70 percent drug offenders, think they are going to give that up? Nope.
What kills me about the drug war is the lies they tell about drugs being dangerous , let's take marijuana for instance, it is listed as a schedule 1 drug, up there with heroine and cocaine, but there has never EVER been a documented death from it's use. Alcohol takes 10s of thousands of users and non users every year, I won't even quote numbers on tobacco.

It's all about money and the sheep the government preys on to keep it coming in, they count on it.

Never going to happen .

---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ericatdallas

08-19-2011, 06:42 PM

IMO folks who makes statements about people who applies for govt assistance and described as "non contributing members of society" and should be drug tested prior to receiving aid is very insensitive and ignorant.

I do agree with you, if that's what people are saying, that blanket labeling those who are on assistance as "non-contributing members of society" is ignorant. If you're referring to my comments, then I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If I get $3,000 from the government because I purchased a home, then I consider that a government handout. It doesn't mean I didn't contribute to society, it's just that the government gave me money where I didn't have any prior contribution. That did happen due to their stimulus package. I would have bought a house anyway. College aid was a handout. I appreciated it. I also would have taken a drug test for it. However, I had made no prior contribution to deserve it. You know what else though? They did set requirements. For the house, it had to be my primary residence, I had to be a first-time homebuyer, etc. For the college aid, I had to have a certain income level, I had to maintain a certain GPA, I had to pass all my classes, etc.

I think the misconception, as I understand it, is that you think (correct me if I'm wrong):
1) People who support this think everyone who is on government assistance is lazy. That's not true. We're saying that we need to get the money where it's needed most. I take a drug test on average twice a year. One year, I took it three times in one month to keep my job. To get my job, I took it three times, once for application, once for follow-up since my application and hire date was like 4 months, and once during training. I took one for my college internship. If I was a bank, I wouldn't loan someone $2,000,000 to buy a house if they made a respectable $50,000 salary and had a credit score of 800. I wouldn't loan $100 to someone with a $50,000 salary but a 200 credit score. It's about getting resources to the right people. Some people will fall through the cracks, but when you let too many people sneak in, well, you have the credit crisis of the last few years...
2) That we don't think there are any justifiable social programs. This may be true for some, but applying that blanket label would be wrong.
3) That we're anti-drug. I think we've shown that those that have commented have a range of very liberal leaning atitudes regarding drug use.

I hope you don't get into a situation where the place you work decides that they no longer need your services and therefore lays you off and you find yourself seeking employment with no luck, and maybe your the occasional pot smoker and you get denied assistance for testing positive.

1) Can't happen. I don't occassionally do pot. So it wouldn't be a problem for me. I have 3 kids and a wife to support as well. If I am unemployed, I need EVERY penny to feed them, so I probably would cut down on luxuries I enjoy now (soda, candy, ice cream, fastfoods,

Wow! To much Fox News.

I really dislike when people do this... One, because usually people who say, "Too much CNN" or "Too much Fox" are getting their news from the other broadcaster. The other reason, it's usually because they are so set in their beliefs, they make the assumption the other person was brainwashed by some propaganda. I don't think any news channel is very objective. I think they're all full of trash (in different ways at different levels). I do believe that you should listen to all views and watch all news media and form your own opinions. I do believe that TV, newspaper, internet, and just reading facts via scientific studies is the way to go. You can see all sides. Even now, when it comes to Al's well formed opinions, I can appreciate his perspective. He's making a logical and emotional appeal towards fairness and freedom. He's NOT saying anyone's ideas are ignorant because of what media he assumes they are getting their news from.

That's easy. When you are physically and mentally able to work, but choose to sit on your butt all day and reproduce like roaches, and then blame all of your problems on the "man" and the injustices of society.
.

I do think that might be a little harsh. There are many physically and mentally capable people right now that can and want to work that can't because of the high unemployment rate. My uncle was a hardworker but it took him two years during the recession in the nineties to get a job. He was a skilled and experienced electrician. He did manage to get odd jobs (so in a way, he backs your claim) but he wasn't able to get regular work sufficient to support his family. They spent a lot of savings to live through it and fortunately my aunt had a stable state govt. job.

Also, there's growing evidence of unemployment discrimination.
http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/ways-avoid-unemployment-discrimination/

Forget it, the war on drugs is big business and will never end.
Even marijuana will never ever be legalized in this country, ain't gonna happen, know why? Cause they make 10 times more money jailing people and running them through the system than any tax could ever create .
The prisons are I'm guessing here, probably 70 percent drug offenders, think they are going to give that up? Nope.
What kills me about the drug war is the lies they tell about drugs being dangerous , let's take marijuana for instance, it is listed as a schedule 1 drug, up there with heroine and cocaine, but there has never EVER been a documented death from it's use. Alcohol takes 10s of thousands of users and non users every year, I won't even quote numbers on tobacco.

I actually think it will happen. It's going to take a while. I think the reason it hasn't is because of conservatives who think it's immoral. They're standing behind the principle not because it's practical or because it makes sense, but because they think it's the right thing to do. They feel it's their moral duty and if they didn't do it, the world would go to anarchy.

When you're debating idealism, religious beliefs, and preconceived notions it's very difficult to change someone's mind. Not that necessarily you need to. I mean, I could probably make convincing logical arguments why we should kill a certain group of people (or given the right person or right chain of events, it's possible). Doesn't mean it would be the "right" thing to do. Now I'm arguing on the side of idealism - based on a feeling that it wouldn't be right to do. So feelings, idealistic notions, and religion isn't necessarily bad, but something that helps keep the world in balance. It's when idealism and cold-hearted logic go to extremes that society has problems.

LizStreithorst

08-19-2011, 06:54 PM

Brew gave the intelligent answer. I just voted what my heart told me.

jcardona1

08-19-2011, 07:34 PM

I do think that might be a little harsh. There are many physically and mentally capable people right now that can and want to work that can't because of the high unemployment rate. My uncle was a hardworker but it took him two years during the recession in the nineties to get a job. He was a skilled and experienced electrician. He did manage to get odd jobs (so in a way, he backs your claim) but he wasn't able to get regular work sufficient to support his family. They spent a lot of savings to live through it and fortunately my aunt had a stable state govt. job.

Also, there's growing evidence of unemployment discrimination.
http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/ways-avoid-unemployment-discrimination/

As I mentioned in some previous posts, there ARE honest people out there that are down on their luck and need the short term help. I have no problem with that. I do however, have a problem with the people I described. People should have to apply and get interviewed to receive assistance, just like if they were applying for a job. Review their criminal history, work history. Did they get laid off due to circumstances beyond their control, and have they been actively trying to find new employment? Do they have proof of jobs they've applied for? Or was the last job they had 4 years ago where they were fired and never again tried to work? Give them a drug test. Are they loaded up with all sorts of recreational drugs? Why should these people be fully supported by the government? What's the point in paying for the food, housing, medical and all other living expenses for somebody who gives nothing back to society? I mean, I know the answer; we're not animals, not a 3rd world county, it's not morally right, etc etc. Still, doesn't mean I like the idea of it.

With a little due diligence, the broken system could be fixed to make people more responsible. Nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves. There's always someone or something to blame, so therefore you rely on the guvment to take care of you.

Sean Buehrle

08-19-2011, 08:36 PM

As far as the drug testing part of this post goes.

I think that a person that has a record of paying into the system like a person that was laid off from a job should not be drug tested for any type of government assistance, whether it be foodstamps, a welfare check or whatever it may be. They didn't drug test him when they took it out of his check when he was working. Looks like another way to screw an American out of what he has coming to him, and blow alot of money trying to enforce it .

I'm kinda wondering when this country is going to stop handing billions over to other countries while ours falls apart, that gets my goat worse than any story of a undeserving drug addict sucking our system dry.
At least that drug addict is our drug addict, he's an American,LOL.

---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kent1963

08-19-2011, 09:39 PM

Scribbles

08-19-2011, 10:09 PM

This one hit home for me. I honestly don't know what the answer is. I would like to see mandatory drug testing for many things such as people who work in law enforcement, the government, and the medical field. I have no problem with drug testing but it isn't free. This will add costs onto a system that already has had to eliminate many positions such as those who check up on child welfare. Where will the money to pay for testing come from? I am currently on disability/Social Security. A program that I paid into when I was working. Working with an occupational counselor we have yet to find a job that I can do. When I am not, according to you, sitting on my fat arse eating bon bons I clean the house ( I miss spots because I am going blind but it's sufficiant for me). People do not hire housekeepers who don't do a good job. I also take care of my brother who has HIV/AIDS (the exact condition depends on the number of CD 4 cells present or if he currently has an AIDS defining illness). I don't have any medical training but I can bring him food and water when he is too sick to take care of himself. Now if you will excuse me I need to go empty his vomit pail and see if he was able to keep down some water or if I need to call for a ride to the hospital so that he can be placed on IV's.

Chris

ericatdallas

08-20-2011, 12:04 AM

I don't have a problem with assistance programs, I think many of them are vital.However I don't see any problem with requiring drug tests, Most employers require them these days so its not any different then if you were applying for a new job. That said I do have a problem requiring people in need of assistance to pay for the drug test. If they really need the aid they are not likely to have 160 $ laying around, I would say if you fail and want a second chance then you foot the bill.

That's a good point. That's a pretty heavy burden to place on someone who needs aid. I think the government should reimburse it if the person passes and reimburse both tests if the person passes the second one (if that's what it takes). So whether the person ultimately qualifies or not, they should immediately receive reimbursement (or relatively soon).

Then it does bring up who pays for this... I guess we'll see over time, if the cost of testing everyone is greater than it would be to have drug users on the system.

JustinJDH401

08-20-2011, 02:28 PM

More than half of these government handouts can help people get off drugs and stay off them. Some of these government handouts are there fur just that reason.

ericatdallas

08-20-2011, 04:09 PM

More than half of these government handouts can help people get off drugs and stay off them. Some of these government handouts are there fur just that reason.

Half? Is this an objective (data) or subjective (guess) probability or neither, just a statement to equate to, "many"?

I am aware of government programs to help people off drugs, some of which I support in a way, but I'm not aware of any that provide cash benefits to those on it. If it exists, I'm going to need to learn more about it and write my local government official.

brewmaster15

08-20-2011, 10:38 PM

Half? Is this an objective (data) or subjective (guess) probability or neither, just a statement to equate to, "many"?

I am aware of government programs to help people off drugs, some of which I support in a way, but I'm not aware of any that provide cash benefits to those on it. If it exists, I'm going to need to learn more about it and write my local government official. Uh-oh Eric...You just mentioned the magic words.... "objective(data) and Subjective (guess) ...One thing about this thread doesn't sit very well with me, I've spent a good deal of time posting articles and links and info on the subject.. what I haven't seen is hard data that shows How many of these welfare recipients are using drugs? I've seen speculation that its alot, I have heard stories thats its alot, I have seen blatant Biases that its alot.... but I haven't seen hard numbers...Not saying there isn't data of this type, but I haven't seen it that would support some of the things I have read in this thread.... nor have I seen the data that would refute it.

I did read else where on Simply that you were quite the Googler :) So my thought was since its your thread maybe we could do a little digging and see what kind of real data we can find....It might convince you of what I haven't convinced you yet...then again...it may force me to re-evaluate some of problems I have with this issue. (However it won't change the fact that I feel forcing anyone to take a drug test is an infringement of their constitutional rights) I'm gearing up for a discus meeting here tomarrow, but I'll see what I can find as well after the meeting.

-al
and By the way... I have to say that for a controversial subject, You have really handled it well. Its the kind of discussion that I don't mind spending my time in.:)

Darrell Ward

08-20-2011, 11:08 PM

I believe much of it is speculation that these people are using drugs. It's just a political excuse some politicians are using to back their position that all public programs should be eliminated. Some have even went as far as to try and "starve" public education out of existence by cutting funding in the name of deficit reduction. Some people actually want to live in a country where there exists only two classes of people, rich and poor. The "haves" can then have a huge supply of cheap labor, the "have nots", without any interference of "meddling unions", minimum wage, or a need to manufacturer overseas. I have read a lot about this, I don't think it's far off base.

Ryan

08-21-2011, 12:22 AM

Also, what's the actual percentage of people on welfare and food stamps vs. people who aren't? Is the cost of drug testing going to save us money in the long run, or cost us more, or will it break even? I'd be interested to see the figures. I always hear people complain about "everyone being on welfare" but what is the true percentage of the population on welfare?

Darrell Ward

08-21-2011, 12:32 AM

ericatdallas

08-21-2011, 01:04 AM

Not saying there isn't data of this type, but I haven't seen it that would support some of the things I have read in this thread.... nor have I seen the data that would refute it.

You're right... and you're on, I accept your challenge ... :)

But first, I want to say the reason I didn't bring statistics and probabilities into this is because ...

"Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures."
"Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment."
"Statistics are no substitute for judgment."
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say."
"There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up. ~Rex Stout, Death of a Doxy"

...and my favorite: "The average human has one breast and one testicle."

Now, I'm not necessarily against statistics. I do think they're abused ESPECIALLY in the social sciences. I do think most people grab on to the numbers without knowing where they come from. They work as guidelines due to incomplete information, so they're not worthless.

Also, as my first quote pointed out, it's a 'covert' activity. How do you quantify it when people hide it? The reason we are drug-testing is because we don't know. A more interesting statistic would be the rate of new applications, the failure rate, and hard numbers for savings or increased welfare spending. If we find we spend more, new applications are up, and that the failure rate is low, the program isn't very cost-effective.

Anyway,... on to the challenge ;)

Because substance use is a covert behavior, its true prevalence among the general and welfare population is unknown. Most studies have relied upon self-reports. Deceptive or inaccurate responses are therefore important concerns. Studies also differ in the thresholds used to characterize substance use problems. Some focus on simple use; others use more stringent thresholds such as abuse or dependence. Due to differing definitions and data sources, published prevalence estimates of use vary widely, from 6.6 to 37 percent of those receiving public aid.

http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/

19 percent of female welfare recipients had used an illicit drug during the prior year.

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/034904.htm

and By the way... I have to say that for a controversial subject, You have really handled it well. Its the kind of discussion that I don't mind spending my time in.:)

Thanks. I always appreciate having someone to discuss a subject with that is able to keep me honest :)
I'm impressed with how everyone here has been pretty good with this. SD discussions can go a little out of hand, but not as bad as I've seen them in other forums.

You know, I'm not even sure why I brought it up... :P I have no problems participating in debates that are brought up here, but usually I avoid talking about it even with friends. I knew SD members could handle it though, but I must have been really bored too :)

I think the key to going into a debate is to know it's possible you could be wrong. Doing it any other way and things tend to degrade. If I revert to calling people names or saying they're brainwashed morons, then it means I ran out of rational and factual things to counter with (which means I need to re-evaluate my original stance because it obviously wasn't that strong to begin with).

My philosophy is that people disagreeing serve to create a balance. One day, I might go on an irrational rampage and I'll need someone with strong convictions to stop me. I certainly accept that it's possible this could be one of those times. I have to admit, having heard some of the counter-arguments, I do wonder if there are better and more effective ways. I do see some bias against welfare recipients and can see how there is some level of scapegoating for our problems. That's not to say I don't still strongly believe in this, more as a matter of principle (the requirements part), than as a cost-savings measure. I think now, I'm more bothered by the constitutional arguments anyway.
In that, if we as a society said, to qualify to welfare, "A person must pass a criminal background check." would that be a problem? I certainly would agree that this would be a problem, "You must go to church every sunday and..."

ericatdallas

08-21-2011, 01:27 AM

That's a valid point. It would have to be a small minority of the total population.

Also, what's the actual percentage of people on welfare and food stamps vs. people who aren't? Is the cost of drug testing going to save us money in the long run, or cost us more, or will it break even? I'd be interested to see the figures. I always hear people complain about "everyone being on welfare" but what is the true percentage of the population on welfare?

Ack... more numbers to look up. I have to go to bed. I have to do a lot of work tomorrow and wake up with the kids :P

A quick search though does backup your claim. It's small... at first glance, it looks like only about $177 billion go out as handouts to poor families and house assistance.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

That's a lot of money, but works out to be less than 5% of the budget. If you take all the money lumped under welfare, that's about 13% of the federal budget, but that lumps into it unemployment insurance (which is paid into).

I do find it sad that we spend only a little more ($130B) on education.

$177B only works out to be $570 per person. That number misleads the financial contribution/ burden of those that don't use government assistance though because not everyone in the US works and of those, not everyone has tax liabilities. So of the tax paying population, the welfare burden is probably greater (i.e. we have a single income in our house, but 5 people in our household). That means the tax contribution expected of my family (if we were to fund welfare by individual) would be $2850 a year to the welfare system (in actuality, I think I end up paying more).

brewmaster15

08-21-2011, 06:07 AM

Eric,

The reason we are drug-testing is because we don't know Is that the reason? Or are we drug testing because a group in office have determined already that a massive problem exists and have based this decision on classic stereotypes and political goals. (GASP, say it isn't so!) ..so large and more government regulation is required ( so much for smaller gov eh??) If thats so, generally speaking in this country, laws are supposed to made after facts are given consideration...have the Politicians in Florida actually done this? It would seem if they did they would use these facts to cement public opinion...haven't seen anything in the news there.

Now heres a flip side...if you are right and the reason for this drug testing is because ...
we are drug-testing is because we don't know then thats even more disturbing...They are making a law to acquire data to justify the very law that they already convinced themselves they needed....sorry but theres something very wrong with making a law like that that affects so many people.In the old days they called things like that "witch Hunts"... Thats not how our Government was meant to work here in the USA.. I'd expect something like that from Corporate America(which is why we have drug testing so wide spread now), not from our law makers... but if thats how Things start getting done here in The USA, we have bigger issues than a some welfare recipients doing drugs, IMHO.

I am not saying that the system is perfect as it is, but I am saying, The ends doesn't justify the means. I also agree that statistics can be manipulated and abused....but without basing decisions on hard numbers, the decision making process becomes one driven by personal conviction, religious,political leanings, and socio-economic beliefs...thats fine for a person making decisions that affect themselves..but its not fine for a political leader thats making decisions that affect large numbers of people....and its one reason, IMO, that our Government has become so dysfunctional.

-al

Darrell Ward

08-21-2011, 08:48 AM

That's the thing, today for all practical purposes, the corporate world does run the government. They pump millions into elections in order to get what they want. The biggest thing they want at the moment is private control of public services, including education. Don't believe it? Check out how much money they have cut in public education in Florida this year. I think it was like 7 million, or 7 billion, heck, I can't remember, but it was 7 with a lot of zeros. They are starving the system. This is only one example. Most politicians are afraid to cross their big time campaign "bosses" for fear of being "fired", their campaign money taken away. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they are going after the poor, because they have little to no voice in government. Until we get the big money out of our elections, (not likely to happen anytime soon) it can only get worse I'm afraid.

TURQ64

08-21-2011, 09:06 AM

It's all about insurance and liabilities..Ins. co.s run the politico's, who pay back by reg's..Gov't OUT of personal business,lives, and pastimes....life liberty,and the pursuit of happiness is how I remembered it went...Screw O.S.H.A., N.A.F.T.A.,B.L.M.,N.F.S., and all of their other people controlling acronyms............

ericatdallas

08-21-2011, 10:07 AM

Eric,
Is that the reason? Or are we drug testing because a group in office have determined already that a massive problem exists and have based this decision on classic stereotypes and political goals. (GASP, say it isn't so!) ..so large and more government regulation is required ( so much for smaller gov eh??) If thats so, generally speaking in this country, laws are supposed to made after facts are given consideration...have the Politicians in Florida actually done this? It would seem if they did they would use these facts to cement public opinion...haven't seen anything in the news there.

Well, maybe I would have qualified that statement a little more. The fact is, there's is evidence that as many as 37% of welfare recipients abuse drugs. It could be as low as 6.7% but the fact of the matter stands, that it's conservative because that's for only those that ADMIT it. The data can be skewed in many ways, but it stands that people in the welfare system use drugs.

Let's go ahead and ASSUME the rates of drug about are the SAME as in the general population.

1) Is it wrong (as our system stands) to use drugs?
2) Is it okay for them to divert that money for their drug use?

I understand it's a matter of what about the 63-93.3% that don't use drugs. But the fact of the matter is, everyday, in corporations, in personal interactions, and yes our government, we are constantly being screened in some form. People dating screen each other. Heck, I don't remember, but I'm almost positive that this site has some screening measures. Is it fair to make me type a CAPTCHA just because there are small percentage of people who abuse the system? Is it fair that I have to post 10 posts before I can post pictures to ask questions about my sick fish? I think so. It's a private system. You're using controls to manage the flood of abuse. You're using controls to limit how much of your resources go into handling it (i.e. your time). It's a matter of you providing your resources and controlling how those resources are distributed. At a very fundamental level, it's really the same thing - whether it's govt, corporations, or individuals, we all try our best to not be taken advantage of.

Now heres a flip side...if you are right and the reason for this drug testing is because ... then thats even more disturbing...They are making a law to acquire data to justify the very law that they already convinced themselves they needed....sorry but theres something very wrong with making a law like that that affects so many people.In the old days they called things like that "witch Hunts"... Thats not how our Government was meant to work here in the USA.. I'd expect something like that from Corporate America(which is why we have drug testing so wide spread now), not from our law makers... but if thats how Things start getting done here in The USA, we have bigger issues than a some welfare recipients doing drugs, IMHO.

The difference between witch hunts and this, is, again, "it's optional." We're not pulling random people off the street to ask them if they take drugs. We're saying, you need to be drug-free and you need to qualify for it. We're not going from house-to-house looking for contraband. Again, the distinction is standards and requirements. I should be able to set a standard for my tax dollars. If I went up to you and said, "Al, give me $100" you would say, "What will you give me in return?" Me, "Nothing, I need it, I'm hungry." I don't know, maybe you are that nice, and you give me $100. Then a week later, you see me buying discus from Turq, I give him your $100. Me, "Al, I need more money..." You, "If you're hungry that's one thing, but I'm not sure I want to fund your discus addiction. Can you promise me you'll spend it on food?"

I am not saying that the system is perfect as it is, but I am saying, The ends doesn't justify the means. I also agree that statistics can be manipulated and abused....but without basing decisions on hard numbers,

Okay, hard numbers... "Approximately 20 percent of TANF recipients report having used an illicit drug at least once in the past year. Prevalence of self-reported drug use among welfare recipients has remained stable post-welfare reform."

1/5? 20% Never been a drug user, but I don't recall my friends who spent their student loans on it ever reported it being cheap...

roundfishross

08-23-2011, 07:37 AM

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/told-you-so-floridas-new-drug-testing-policy-already-costing-taxpayers-more

and heres the awnser about the savings

brewmaster15

08-23-2011, 09:01 AM

Thanks for the Article Leo, theres a link in there that was interesting....turns out They should have seen that coming...I mentioned earlier on that laws should only be enacted after a hard facts have been evaluated...In this case it turns out that hard facts were there and ignored... Florida had done a pilot study.. http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/05/2203328/bill-requiring-welfare-recipients.html

A state-funded pilot project found a relatively small percentage of welfare applicants tested positive for drugs. The project conducted in the Jacksonville area between 1999 and 2001 found that 335 applicants out of nearly 8,800 applicants failed a drug test.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/05/2203328/bill-requiring-welfare-recipients.html#ixzz1Vr4TazKW

The current law in Florida targets roughly 114,000 people/families...

From the link Leo posted...

The Department of Children and Families' central region has tested 40 applicants since the law went into effect six weeks ago, and of those 40 applicants, 38 tested negative for drugs. The cost to the state of Florida to reimburse those 38 individuals who tested negative was at least $1,140 over the course of six weeks. Meanwhile, denying benefits to the two applicants who tested positive will save Florida less than $240 a month.

Doesn't look like a good way to save money to me.

and the Irony is even those tested positive can still get their benefits...they just have to appoint someone else to receive them, that person just needs to be tested..Thats how the law is written.

So what savings of these tax payers moneys really occurs...none.

-al

ericatdallas

08-23-2011, 10:38 AM

This is where I have problems with statistics. Not the numbers themselves, but how they're interpreted as accepted as gospel so long as the "truth" fits the agenda. I'm not saying this about just this number, but ALL numbers.

But let's take those numbers.

Where is this pilot study? I can't find it.

1) Sample group? Not the number, we have that, but how they were selected.
2) Was it voluntary? I don't see drug addicts taking the test voluntarily unless there was a monetary incentive to do so. Why risk getting caught when you don't have to, no matter the assurances.
3) What drugs did they test for? In ten years, what has occurred in drug testing technology? What are we able to detect, at what levels, and what do we test now that we didn't before. For instance, certain designer drugs aren't tested b/c the state doesn't know to look for them.

..but back to the numbers. How do you resolve that a "pilot study" conflicts with self-reporting? Ther'es obviously conflicting information. Also, 2 out of 40 have failed the drug test since the law.

1) How many people were discouraged from participating and applying because of the new law? It fails to account for that.
2) 2/40 => 1 out of 20 => 5%, so if we're going to use that number, that means we're going to stop 5% of drug-users from getting money (of those that VOLUNTARILY tested after the law went in place)
3) $240 a month, but how long does a typical recipient stay in the system. Its like saying I spent $1500 up front, but my long-term value is many times that. If we were strictly to look at a month-to-month basis, then you would say, no it's not worth it to buy a house, invest in stocks, or even buy government bonds.

You're also drawing conclusions about money saving and motivation. Like I said previously, if we saved money, that's the "cherry and icing" BUT it's about getting the money where it's needed - for the kids. So a non-drug-using appointed adult that passes the drug test might be more inclined to use the money properly for the children than a drug-using one. Heck, it's still a loop-hole, but even if it's 100% abused, that goes to my next point...

1) Just like my previous examples and I think I've "foot-stomped" them enough, it's NOT about their right to collect welfare it's about MY right to have a say about how my (our) resources are redistributed.

So there is ONE issue here with multiple divergent principles.
1) Should welfare go to drugs, even an incremental amount.
2) Is it unconstitutional
3) Should we as a society be able to stipulate how are resources are distributed. IF the answer is not, it seems unconstitutional to have our money taken away from us and redistributed.

Again, I have nothing against statistics. It's how people abuse them. Those numbers are undeniable. They are true. They are fact. HOWEVER, how they're interpreted is when things get messy.

I'm not saying we SHOULD ignore them. I'm just saying we need to step back and say, "What are those numbers really saying. Where did those numbers come from."

ericatdallas

08-23-2011, 10:50 AM

This isn't really relevant to the discussion, but seemed the appropriate place to rant while we're talking about this... take this post in no way supporting the original topic. In fact, it ACTUALLY illustrates the point for the opposition. Just purely what happened to me yesterday... (in fact, this is more about grocery stores and poor customer service than welfare)

I was at the grocery store yesterday trying to return potatoes, strawberries, and lettuce. The potatoes were pre-packaged and when we opened it, they were rotting. It was hard to tell through the bag. So was the lettuce, we chopped it, and it was all brown inside. The strawberries were all damaged and mushy, but really hard to tell. I had to pick one up and have it fall apart before I realized it..

Anyway, for such small purcahses, I usually don't keep the receipt. So I went back to the grocery store and they said, "we can exchange it but not refund it." Well, I replaced the potatoes and lettuce but the strawberries on the shelf were all mushy. I asked, "Can I trade it for other foods?" She said, "No, it's a WIC item (food stamps kind of for those not in the know) and they can only be exchanged without a receipt." I talked the manager and got the same response.

I showed them three boxes of moldy strawberries on their shelf and they said they knew but couldn't help me. I said, "There's no way you can make an exception for a $2 box of strawberries?" Now, I've worked that EXACT job. I used to be an assistant department-level grocery store manager when I was in college. . I emphasize with their policies but she said it was the law. Lie. She said she was the store manager. Also a lie. Having worked the grocery stores for 7 years I know the liars. I never lied, but I did redirect to give certain impressions (i.e. that I was in charge of the whole store so the store director didn't have to come down over every complaint but never straight up said I was more in charge than I was).

I said, "So what you're saying is, you will ONLY give me money back with a receipt, which I get, but I can ONLY get strawberries EVEN though they're all rotting on your shelf and you can see it for yourself?" She said, "Yeah, sorry, that's the law." I even said I would get another type of product, except cucumbers, because they were on the shelf rotting. She said, "I would call my produce manager, but he's not here." I said, "Obviously there's no manager there in that section."

Anyway, this in a way illustrates the point about punishing the greater number for the abuse of a few. However, there are times when common sense should come in.

I don't have a problem with the STANDARD, again, they're controlling abuse. Common sense should trump rules. The stores shouldn't lie. It's NOT the law, it's always been policy. There's a VERY big difference. Unless Ohio has different laws than Texas (possible) or things have changed in the last ten years since I worked for the grocery store (also possible).

In any even, even for our policy, it was ALWAYS acceptable to trade like-for-like. For instance, WIC recipients couldn't get cash back for formula BUT could get a different baby formula. They could ALWAYs trade cereal for cereal, produce for produce, and in many cases, any WIC food for any WIC food whether they had a receipt or not.

I wanted to video their produce section and then talk to their manager, post it on Facebook but my battery on phone was dead :(

I mean, she CLAIMED to be the store manager, but COULD NOT do anything about her produce department. Didnt' even ask to check in the back.

brewmaster15

08-23-2011, 11:09 AM

Eric,
I'm beginning to feel like we are on a Merry -go -round...I'll close out my thoughts here with one more link...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jun/09/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-welfare-recipients-are-more-likely/

Rick Scott says welfare recipients are more likely to use illicit drugs
Half-True
Share this story:

Florida Gov. Rick Scott is defending his decision to sign a bill into law requiring drug tests for potential cash welfare recipients by saying that people who get welfare are more likely to be on drugs.

During an appearance on CNN on June 5, 2011, Scott was asked what evidence he had that people receiving welfare assistance in Florida are using drugs.

"Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare," Scott said. He started to continue his thought -- but was cut off by host T.J. Holmes. (You can watch the entire exchange by clicking here.)

"Sir, to that point ... that would stop people in their tracks. And I don't have whatever study you are referring to, but you're saying that people out there who need this assistance, lost jobs, are on welfare, have a higher tendency to use drugs," Holmes said.

"Absolutely," Scott responded. "Studies show that people on welfare are using drugs much higher than other people in the population. But the bottom line is, if they're not using drugs, it's not an issue. Our taxpayers don't want to subsidize somebody's drug addiction. It's going to increase personal responsibility. It's the right thing to do for Floridians."

Are cash welfare recipients more likely to be drug users than other Floridians?

Details about the drug-testing law

Scott had run for office promising a drug-testing requirement, and he worked to broaden the original drug-testing bill that would have applied only to recent drug felons. The final bill, HB 353, which Scott signed on May 31, forces all people who receive welfare cash -- called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families -- to pass a drug test in order to be eligible for the funds. If prospective recipients fail a first test, they would lose benefits for one year. A second positive drug test would make them ineligible for three years.

About 233,000 Floridians applied for cash assistance in 2009-10, according to statistics kept by the Department of Children and Families. During May 2011, 93,170 Floridians received cash assistance, a drop of 8.3 percent from a year ago. Payments can range from $100 to $200 a month per person.

Under the law -- which takes effect July 1 -- welfare applicants would have to pay for the test. If they pass, the state would reimburse them for the cost, which can range from $10 to $25.

Florida has tried to initiate drug testing before. The Legislature in 1998 approved a drug-testing pilot project for people receiving temporary cash assistance. But the results were underwhelming. Of the 8,797 applicants screened for drugs, only 335 (3.8 percent) showed evidence of having a controlled substance in their systems and failed the test, the Orlando Sentinel reported. The pilot project cost the state $2.7 million (or about $90 a test).

The Legislature ultimately abandoned the program.

Scott's case: Welfare recipients and drug use

Scott spokesman Lane Wright provided PolitiFact Florida with government and academic research that suggests people receiving government assistance are more likely to use illicit drugs than people who are not.

The government analysis comes from the Department of Health and Human Services, which -- through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency -- conducts an annual National Survey on Drug Use & Health. (A lot of long names, sorry.) The survey has been conducted since 1971. Surveyors administer questions through face-to-face interviews at the subject's home. Results are based on tens of thousands of responses.

Government researchers used the 1999 and 2000 surveys to publish a report titled "Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance."

Among the findings, researchers concluded that "past-month illicit drug use was higher in assisted families than in unassisted families among persons aged 12 to 64."

Specifically, the report found that 9.6 percent of people in families receiving some type of government assistance reported recent drug use, compared to 6.8 percent among people in families receiving no government assistance at all. The government research, we should note, extends beyond the scope of what Scott is talking about -- cash payments through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program -- and includes families receiving food stamps, non-cash assistance through housing assistance or child care, and people receiving Medicaid.

It also is 11 years old.

But it does provide at least some grounding for Scott's claim.

We asked Bradford Stone, a government spokesman for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency, if researchers have used more recent survey data to complete the same analysis regarding drug use and welfare assistance. Stone said researchers have not.

The second report is from Harold Pollack, a professor at the University of Chicago who studies substance abuse among welfare recipients, and Lisa Metsch, a professor at the University of Miami.

The 2009 report, "Substance Use Among Welfare Recipients: Trends and Policy Responses," concluded that "substance abuse and dependence are relatively uncommon" for people receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families dollars. Yet the same research found -- by reviewing many different surveys -- that "approximately 20 percent of TANF recipients report that they have used an illicit drug at least once in the past year."

In an interview with PolitiFact Florida, Pollack said that his research helps support Scott's claim -- but it also doesn't.

"It is true that compared to other women of the same age, TANF recipients are more likely to use illicit substances," Pollack said. "That's a fact.

"On the other hand, there are a couple of major caveats," Pollack added.

Pollack said that most women who have used an illicit drug in the past year do not meet the diagnosis of being dependent on drugs, or abusing drugs. A lot of casual marijuana users may well test positive, Pollack said, but they do not have a "drug problem."

Nor are they feeding a habit with welfare dollars, Pollack said.

The other case: Welfare recipients and drug use

The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the drug-testing requirement, offered other government and academic research to consider.

Researchers at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a part of the National Institutes of Health, published findings in 1996 that said welfare recipients "using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or illicit drugs are consistent with proportions of both the adult U.S. population and adults who do not receive welfare."

The research relied on 1992 data and concluded that drug use among welfare recipients ranged between 1.3 to 3.6 percent, compared to 1.5 percent for non-welfare recipients.

The caveats here are much like the government research Scott provided. Namely, it includes other types of welfare than cash assistance, and it's old. The report was published in 1996, and relies on 1992 data.

Another researcher used data from Michigan -- a state that participated in drug-testing for welfare recipients until the program was ruled unconstitutional. In Michigan, 10 percent of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. That's comparable to The National Survey on Drug Use & Health, which found that in 2007-08, 8.95 percent of all Michigan residents (grouping non-welfare and welfare recipients) said they used illicit drugs in the last month.

Lastly, the ACLU highlighted the work of professors Robert Crew Jr. and Belinda Creel Davis, who studied Florida's attempt to drug test welfare recipients.

In two research papers, "Substance Abuse as a Barrier to Employment of Welfare Recipients" and "Assessing the Effects of Substance Abuse Among Applicants for TANF Benefits: The Outcome of a Demonstration Project in Florida," Crew and Davis assessed the results of the Florida program.

They found that only 5 percent of welfare recipients showed evidence of drug abuse. But, Crew and Davis noted, the number is low in comparison to other data and raises "some questions about the procedures employed by the state."

Yet, Crew and Davis also concluded: "The evidence from Florida suggests that the concern on the part of both citizens and public officials about substance abuse among welfare recipients may be unwarranted. Evidence from previous research on the welfare population in Florida shows that controlled substances are low (about 5 percent) when measured by a urine test."

The study also concluded that welfare recipients who do use drugs are able to compete for jobs just like middle- and upper-class drug users -- meaning drug use isn't creating their reliance on welfare.

But Crew, who teaches at Florida State University, told us that his research didn't try to compare drug use among TANF recipients and non-TANF recipients.

"We didn't try to compare that population in Florida," he said. "I don't know how to do that."

Crew said his research had two major conclusions -- which we previously noted. The percentage of welfare recipients who used drugs in Florida was "pretty small," and in terms of those recipients finding work, "it didn't make much difference whether they used drugs or not."

Our ruling

Let's remember what Scott said. He told CNN's T.J. Holmes that, "Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare."

Scott's office provided evidence that supports that claim. Sort of.

And opponents provided evidence that refutes Scott's claim. Sort of.

What's obvious is that it's difficult to make broad generalizations about a whole group of people. And it's even more difficult to definitively measure drug use. Scott's statement is at least partially accurate because there are studies showing a higher prevalence of drug use among some welfare recipients. But he also is neglecting research that suggests that drug use among welfare and non-welfare recipients is consistent. We rate this claim Half True.

please read this article in its entirety.thanks.

and this.. You've mentioned repeatedly that its your taxes and you should have a say in the allocation of resources they buy....and thats true...but those taxes were mixed with mine..paid to the federal Government and sent to the state of Florida for welfare programs. :)

take care,
Al

TANF funding sources and Goals...
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resources/funding_guide.htm#tanffunds

cjr8420

08-23-2011, 11:33 AM

i think you need to find a new grocery store to much bad food lol.as far as drugs doing drugs is not illegal being in posession of drugs is illegal.and now days legal prescription drugs are doing more harm than all but the worst illegal ones.everything in politics is about money. if this governer isnt making money on this deal some how then i bet his friend or family member is now the welfare drug enforcement manager making 100k + a year for doing nothing or atleast thats how they do it in IL our last 2 govs are in jail its all about more money for them or someone they know who will hook them up later

ericatdallas

08-23-2011, 11:59 AM

ericatdallas

08-23-2011, 12:03 PM

i think you need to find a new grocery store to much bad food lol.

Yeah, that's what we decided. It's 24-hours and next work, so it was convenient. Although, if I drive 5 more minutes, there's a 24-hour Kroger a little out of the way, so I might go there.

The manager just called me right as I finished typing that. She seemed a little annoyed about what she heard. She -actually- was the store director, she was there at the time, and she was quiet after I said, "I showed her the rotting strawberries and she wouldn't yield, I couldn't exchange for ANYTHING but another box of rotting strawberries."

So she said, next time I'm in, ask for her, and she would give me my $2.

I know from having worked in a grocery store, the store director gets extremely annoyed when a customer calls corporate because of a $2 item. Because honestly, at that point, the customer is not angry about $2, it's usually the customer service manager poorly handling the situation and not using common sense.

ericatdallas

08-23-2011, 12:22 PM

Al,

I actually like that article. It's more of the analysis I'm looking for when interpreting numbers. Again, there are many issues at stake here, not just the outright statement the subject suggests.

People sometimes need help (government sponsored education is the reason I do what I do and it's also the ROI the government was looking for when it gave me my aid). I was a recipient of school lunches. We weren't on welfare or foodstamps, we qualified, my mom was a single mom (widow) with two jobs and worked at least 60 hours a week and there were times she worked 80 hours. She also worked at a factory once that paid her below minimum wage BECAUSE they gave her a per article compensation. I don't turn my nose at the poor. I was the poor. I don't turn my nose at public assistance. I'm a product of public assistance.

Just FYI, I do carefully consider all the things and facts you mention and usually will do a background search to validate it. Before I posted this topic, I was prepared with all the arguments against it (which is a true personal test of whether a topic is worth supporting). There's always a pro/con to every issue, it's where the scales are tipped for you personally. What's more important to you may be of lesser value to someone else. I sold some items on eBay that I think are worth $20 but people paid $90 for it <shrug>.

The article, said some things a lot more articulately than I stated or am able to, but does point out how "complicated" the real answer gets. In the end, I want my piece of the pie and I'm willing to share so long as that pie isn't traded off for things -I- consider "wasteful".

At the end of the day, we're all trying to get through this world together.