States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[alan1]

Nice assumption you made there. Without welfare, they will turn to crime? Or are you saying that kids raised in foster care all turn to crime?
You seem to have a pretty negative assessment of people on welfare, and of children in foster care.

I do have a negative assessment of kids in foster care. But tell me, if you deny parents welfare because they smoked weed, what else are you going to do with the kids and how much will it cost?

Considering what the war on drugs has cost us, the enormous amount of money we spend to jail marijuana smokers and the near ZERO impact on drug use, I'd say there is no reasoning with this either. We'll all just pay for this, just like the failed war on drugs.

We can cancel the war on drugs and use the saved money for this program.

 

[Peejay]

I do have a negative assessment of kids in foster care. But tell me, if you deny parents welfare because they smoked weed, what else are you going to do with the kids and how much will it cost?

Considering what the war on drugs has cost us, the enormous amount of money we spend to jail marijuana smokers and the near ZERO impact on drug use, I'd say there is no reasoning with this either. We'll all just pay for this, just like the failed war on drugs.

We can cancel the war on drugs and use the saved money for this program.

That's a proposition I'd almost take. The war on drugs is a miserable failure but like most government programs, once you start it, it's hell to stop. Start drug testing welfare recipients and no matter how much it cost, it'll be hell prying those beauracrats out of those administrative jobs.

 

[alan1]

Considering what the war on drugs has cost us, the enormous amount of money we spend to jail marijuana smokers and the near ZERO impact on drug use, I'd say there is no reasoning with this either. We'll all just pay for this, just like the failed war on drugs.

We can cancel the war on drugs and use the saved money for this program.

That's a proposition I'd almost take. The war on drugs is a miserable failure but like most government programs, once you start it, it's hell to stop. Start drug testing welfare recipients and no matter how much it cost, it'll be hell prying those beauracrats out of those administrative jobs.

Well, the war on poverty hasn't worked either for the last 40+ years.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They aren't already being punished when the parents use the money for drugs instead of food?

Use the money for drugs instead of food? Just exactly how do you think this system works? You think drug dealers take EBT cards?

Do you think people living on welfare have the easter bunny deliver drug money to them? Or is it the tooth fairy? (maybe that explains why crackheads are missing so many teeth).
Quit being so naive.

Way to answer a question with a question, thereby proving that you don't know any of the answers. You're just hoping someone else does, and will assume YOU do, and say it before you're pressed on it.

I'm not the one who thinks they're out there spending the public money on drugs in epidemic proportions, so I'm not actually required to address where they're getting the money. You, on the other hand, are. So kindly explain to me how they're spending the taxpayers' money on drugs. And be specific.

 

[Care4all]

Do republicans believe in LESS GOVERNMENT or NOT?

It is a yes or no answer.....pretty simple really....

 

[Peejay]

We can cancel the war on drugs and use the saved money for this program.

That's a proposition I'd almost take. The war on drugs is a miserable failure but like most government programs, once you start it, it's hell to stop. Start drug testing welfare recipients and no matter how much it cost, it'll be hell prying those beauracrats out of those administrative jobs.

Well, the war on poverty hasn't worked either for the last 40+ years.

Really ? Care to explain ?

I'm pretty well versed on the poverty numbers and I can tell you, we do a great job alleviating poverty. Among the best in the world. Drug use, OTOH, one of the worst in the world.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nice assumption you made there. Without welfare, they will turn to crime? Or are you saying that kids raised in foster care all turn to crime?
You seem to have a pretty negative assessment of people on welfare, and of children in foster care.

I do have a negative assessment of kids in foster care. But tell me, if you deny parents welfare because they smoked weed, what else are you going to do with the kids and how much will it cost?

I'm pretty sure it would cost less to take care of the kids, than to take care of the kids + the parents + the parent's drug habit. How about you?

Of course you're "pretty sure", because you know very little about the costs of the welfare system versus the costs of the foster care system, not to mention that you seem to think you can quantify the costs solely in taxpayer dollars, as opposed to the welfare of the child. And no, taking children away from their parents because the parents test positive for marijuana is NOT in their best interests. So don't even consider being flip and blase with me about how it's no big deal to take kids from their parents.

 

[Ravi]

Do republicans believe in LESS GOVERNMENT or NOT?

It is a yes or no answer.....pretty simple really....

Right? Big brother is okay when big brother is cracking down on the poor, the helpless, and the stoners.

 

[Ravi]

Well, MM, I anxiously await your cost benefit analysis. I take it you don't care about American children, but you seem to care about money. Please post the costs of the differing scenarios...welfare vs. orphanages/foster care.

 

[Jon]

Do republicans believe in LESS GOVERNMENT or NOT?

It is a yes or no answer.....pretty simple really....

Right? Big brother is okay when big brother is cracking down on the poor, the helpless, and the stoners.

How about this? Since you don't care that our tax dollars are spent to provide habitual drug users with funds to continue their habit, why don't YOU pay for it and I'll invest my money in more prudent causes. But so long as MY money is going to these fuckers, I should at least get the comfort of knowing they aren't using it to promote illegal behavior.

 

[KittenKoder]

Time for the one who lived on 'welfare' for several years to chime in:

I am ALL for it. Living in the shelters the only reason it was tough for one of us who were clean and sober was because of all the junkies and drunks taking advantage of the system. It would make the interview processes and paperwork easier as well as speed up the review process a lot ... here, pee in this cup and we'll let you know in a few days (instead of the weeks and sometimes months it can take for background checks). Even with the current system, there are a LOT of junkies and drunks stealing money from the government for their habits .. so fuck em, if they want to break the law they don't deserve any of my taxes.

 

[Care4all]

If we put drug users in to a drug rehab program, then MAYBE i could see the point in doing this, or if we put Alcoholics in to a 12 step program, while still paying them then maybe i could see the point in doing this....

But note that this would be much more costly on us tax payers than paying a TANF payment for 2 years.

To just drug test and then deny benefits will do nothing to make the person well, or society any safer.

And those that are alcoholics, which would be more people than those using illegal drugs... would continue to get their payments and no rehab help I would suppose, because it is not against the law to be an alcoholic bum....

And again, if you make it so you can intrude in on the privacy of the poorest only, then this would be discrimination....

It would have to be drug testing every single American that lives here and draws or uses any kind of taxes from the government....

all in the banking industry
all in the auto industry
all kids going to college on a gvt loan or grant
all kids on schip
all seniors on SS
all senators, congressmen, and their aids
all postal workers
all receiving health care benefits from their jobs whose employers take the write off
all who own homes who take the deduction for interest
All collecting disability
all receiving unemployment
All who work at the unemployment office
all who drive on our roads

and so on and so forth.

There sure would be an aweful lot of people being drug tested....

While the alcoholics would continue to draw benefits....

Personally, i think it breaks the constitution and is NONE, ABSOLUTELY NONE of any of our business what someone does with their own body and FORCING any citizen to take a drug test is just plain unconstitutional...

Even if you are pulled over drunk, you have THE RIGHT TO REFUSE to take the alcoholic breathalizor test because you have the right to not have to testify against oneself.


I truely do not understand any of you that think this is should be done and how you do not see it as an invasion of privacy.

Drug addicts, ARE ADDICTS, which makes it a medical condition, just as being an alcoholic...and you are saying that I, (and the government) have the right to know someone elses medical conditions.....

I whole heartedly disagree and would suggest those of you that think we do have this power over others, spend a week or two, reading and sleeping, with our Constitution and the Declaration of independence.

care

 

[KittenKoder]

Care ... what do you mean IF?

We waste millions a year in Seattle for drug programs, which many are forced to go to if they get caught, almost 80% of those who do go right back to their old habits after they finish the program, 10% don't even finish and end up back in jail. Almost all of these "repeat offenders" are on welfare, so it's costing us double. Our city is broke, beyond broke, and you think we need more?

 

[Care4all]

Care ... what do you mean IF?

We waste millions a year in Seattle for drug programs, which many are forced to go to if they get caught, almost 80% of those who do go right back to their old habits after they finish the program, 10% don't even finish and end up back in jail. Almost all of these "repeat offenders" are on welfare, so it's costing us double. Our city is broke, beyond broke, and you think we need more?

you can't be on welfare anymore without working or being in a work training program Kitten.

Not since the gingrich welfare reform legislation.

we have had a 50% reduction in TANF/Welfare since this legislation passed.

So, perhaps when you were homeless on welfare, things were different....

Care

 

[KittenKoder]

Care ... what do you mean IF?

We waste millions a year in Seattle for drug programs, which many are forced to go to if they get caught, almost 80% of those who do go right back to their old habits after they finish the program, 10% don't even finish and end up back in jail. Almost all of these "repeat offenders" are on welfare, so it's costing us double. Our city is broke, beyond broke, and you think we need more?

you can't be on welfare anymore without working or being in a work training program Kitten.

Not since the gingrich welfare reform legislation.

we have had a 50% reduction in TANF/Welfare since this legislation passed.

So, perhaps when you were homeless on welfare, things were different....

Care

Less than two years ago. When you are disabled you also get welfare, and my best friend in real life works with them, so I still have access to the info. Plus I get Medicaid, not willing to pay a small fortune for my occasional doctors visits and constant hosipital visits for a medical problem caused by their incompetence.

The only they use are background checks, and they don't have to be on a program unless they have a conviction. But the programs don't work, they FAIL, AA only has a 12% success rate, NA is worse. Drug testing it the only way to prevent them from taking advantage of it, period.

 

[alan1]

Use the money for drugs instead of food? Just exactly how do you think this system works? You think drug dealers take EBT cards?

Do you think people living on welfare have the easter bunny deliver drug money to them? Or is it the tooth fairy? (maybe that explains why crackheads are missing so many teeth).
Quit being so naive.

Way to answer a question with a question, thereby proving that you don't know any of the answers. You're just hoping someone else does, and will assume YOU do, and say it before you're pressed on it.

I'm not the one who thinks they're out there spending the public money on drugs in epidemic proportions, so I'm not actually required to address where they're getting the money. You, on the other hand, are. So kindly explain to me how they're spending the taxpayers' money on drugs. And be specific.

Neither am I, scroll back and read my posts, I estimated that drug usage among welfare recipients was probably about the same percentage as the general population at about 6%. You are trying to create a strawman.

I already pointed out that if somebodies sole source of income is welfare, and they use drugs, then they are spending welfare money on drugs instead of on taking care of their children. I'm sorry that concept is so difficult for you to grasp.

 

[alan1]

That's a proposition I'd almost take. The war on drugs is a miserable failure but like most government programs, once you start it, it's hell to stop. Start drug testing welfare recipients and no matter how much it cost, it'll be hell prying those beauracrats out of those administrative jobs.

Well, the war on poverty hasn't worked either for the last 40+ years.

Really ? Care to explain ?

I'm pretty well versed on the poverty numbers and I can tell you, we do a great job alleviating poverty. Among the best in the world. Drug use, OTOH, one of the worst in the world.

1968 12.8% poverty, 2006 12.3% poverty. Historical Poverty Tables
Doesn't look like its changed much to me.

 

[alan1]

I do have a negative assessment of kids in foster care. But tell me, if you deny parents welfare because they smoked weed, what else are you going to do with the kids and how much will it cost?

I'm pretty sure it would cost less to take care of the kids, than to take care of the kids + the parents + the parent's drug habit. How about you?

Of course you're "pretty sure", because you know very little about the costs of the welfare system versus the costs of the foster care system, not to mention that you seem to think you can quantify the costs solely in taxpayer dollars, as opposed to the welfare of the child. And no, taking children away from their parents because the parents test positive for marijuana is NOT in their best interests. So don't even consider being flip and blase with me about how it's no big deal to take kids from their parents.

Funny how you only want to focus on marijuana. There are lot more drugs than marijuana out there. Perhaps you can explain to me how a child is better off being raised by a crack addict or heroin addict simply because that person doing the raising is their biological parent?

 

[alan1]

Well, MM, I anxiously await your cost benefit analysis. I take it you don't care about American children, but you seem to care about money. Please post the costs of the differing scenarios...welfare vs. orphanages/foster care.

I've already posted some numbers and backed them up with links, dispute them and include your links if I am wrong.

Oh, and you can take your snide comment about me "not caring about children" and just dismiss it from your head. It's not a fact, it's you trying to insinuate bullshit to justify your opposing opinion about the discussion. It's weak.

 

[alan1]

Care ... what do you mean IF?

We waste millions a year in Seattle for drug programs, which many are forced to go to if they get caught, almost 80% of those who do go right back to their old habits after they finish the program, 10% don't even finish and end up back in jail. Almost all of these "repeat offenders" are on welfare, so it's costing us double. Our city is broke, beyond broke, and you think we need more?

Thanks KK, you get it.
Forcing people into rehab for alcohol and/or drug addiction doesn't work. The person has to want to recover to be successful.