States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Shogun]

Drug users shoudn't be supporting their habit at tax payer expense. That's not the point. We agree on that. Like I said before, the only way to settle this will be if testing passes constitutional muster first, then we'll see how cost effective it is.

no that IS the point. if I've got a finite amount of cash and I know that I can spend 40 on a sack because I have at least that much in FS coming then that IS the point.


At Scotus level it would have to be allowed or else pre-emplyment drug tests would hinder the exact same breach of the 4th amendment. And, those are not going anywhere.

Yes, we agree on that point. It shouldn't be happening, but it does. The question is what are you willing to spend to stop it ? Would you spend more than we currently do in order to pull people off assistance ? I mean, your principle is solid, I just don't want to pay for it if it means increased spending. And I think it will. So are you trying to save money or are you trying to spend money in order to prove a point ?

Also, an agreed upon test between two private parties is different than a test issued by the federal government. Different circumstances, different parties. I would think that the issue may make it's wat to the SCOTUS sooner or later.

hey.. sometimes the cost of law enforcement outweagh the benefit of patrol too. You seem to keep focusing on the cost of piss tests as if the cost won't be offset by removing drug users from the roster. Again, i'll do the fucking math: If a pot smoker looks forward to receiving 500 dollars per month for a year the sum cost is 6k not counting processing and administrative fees. One random piss test may cost 100 dollars for a net savings of 5900 for this year for ONE PERSON filtered from FS. This savings goes on to pay for another 590 piss tests for 590 other FS consumers which clarifies the integrity of this social BENEFIT.


sorry, but the COSTof FS is not a burdn for tax payers alone. If some proke dick motherfucker wants free food then they can leap over the hurdle of drug testing. The Fed doesn't make anyone apply for FS. The very least we could do, in the name of saving tax payer cost, is apply the same regulated standard to these people that Catholic Charities must face when taking money from the gov.

 

[Shogun]

Shog would rather waste money that could be used to feed children in order to ensure that those same children don't get future benefits. He would rather do that because it MIGHT result in some woman he hates not getting her food stamps, because he thinks that woman shouldn't have them as a result of getting knocked up by someone she tricked into having sex with her. He doesn't give a shit about the kids, or the money, because that's not what it's about. It's about PUNISHMENT.

It's not a waste if it clarifies that FS money is actually going where it needs to be instead of becoming a drug money subsidy. Again, it's YOU people who are taking money from the mouths of kids by insisting that an abuses status quo is impervious to regulation. You DO realize that YOU are not the one defending food going to KIDS, right? YOU are the one supporting looking the other way while crack mammas enjoy some more crack while baby crackbaby enjoys a lifestyle that your apathy makes possible. After all, who needs to spread around funds for those who need it when you mellodramatic bitches have a crack baby and a user mother to defend?





oh NOW it's a WOMAN HATING thing, eh? Sorry, bitch. you lose if this is the tangent you need to leap at.

 

[Shogun]

Bingo. THe program is there. If you want a different program, put out a different set of rules. But don't arbitrarily decide the focus is moving away from providing foods to kids.

I guess this is a "too fucking bad" moment for you then, eh bitch? Notice which way the states are schooling... hint: it's not in the direction where your crackmamma junkies can continue subsidizing their drug habit with tax based income.

 

[Peejay]

no that IS the point. if I've got a finite amount of cash and I know that I can spend 40 on a sack because I have at least that much in FS coming then that IS the point.


At Scotus level it would have to be allowed or else pre-emplyment drug tests would hinder the exact same breach of the 4th amendment. And, those are not going anywhere.

Yes, we agree on that point. It shouldn't be happening, but it does. The question is what are you willing to spend to stop it ? Would you spend more than we currently do in order to pull people off assistance ? I mean, your principle is solid, I just don't want to pay for it if it means increased spending. And I think it will. So are you trying to save money or are you trying to spend money in order to prove a point ?

Also, an agreed upon test between two private parties is different than a test issued by the federal government. Different circumstances, different parties. I would think that the issue may make it's wat to the SCOTUS sooner or later.

hey.. sometimes the cost of law enforcement outweagh the benefit of patrol too. You seem to keep focusing on the cost of piss tests as if the cost won't be offset by removing drug users from the roster. Again, i'll do the fucking math: If a pot smoker looks forward to receiving 500 dollars per month for a year the sum cost is 6k not counting processing and administrative fees. One random piss test may cost 100 dollars for a net savings of 5900 for this year for ONE PERSON filtered from FS. This savings goes on to pay for another 590 piss tests for 590 other FS consumers which clarifies the integrity of this social BENEFIT.


sorry, but the COSTof FS is not a burdn for tax payers alone. If some proke dick motherfucker wants free food then they can leap over the hurdle of drug testing. The Fed doesn't make anyone apply for FS. The very least we could do, in the name of saving tax payer cost, is apply the same regulated standard to these people that Catholic Charities must face when taking money from the gov.

Your math just seems short sighted. There will certainly be other consequences to pay for. Caring for the children that will be affected is one big expense you aren't acknowledging.

And yes, law enforcement cost us. So will this. So ,ong as you acknowledge that you are ready to pay, I got no problem with your argument. But it will cost more.

 

[Shogun]

Shog would rather waste money that could be used to feed children in order to ensure that those same children don't get future benefits. He would rather do that because it MIGHT result in some woman he hates not getting her food stamps, because he thinks that woman shouldn't have them as a result of getting knocked up by someone she tricked into having sex with her. He doesn't give a shit about the kids, or the money, because that's not what it's about. It's about PUNISHMENT.

Don't forget the cable bill.

oh YES! Clearly FS should go to households with CABLE TELEVISION, XBOX 360s and chrome rims!





I tellya.. there are no luxuries on FOOD STAMPS! Go ahead.. buy a yacht! Uncle sam will pay for dunner!

 

[Shogun]

Like I said, put your facts together and make a cost analysis. All of my averages came from government web sites, although they do rise and fall by a bit. Take the low end, take your own facts, make an argument besides....."un uh...no it's not". That's just not convincing. It bears out that you aren't making an informed argument, just taking away the sad facts from a bad personal experience.

Seriously? How can drug costing be as expensive as people want you to think? You can buy the cheap-o tests for $25 bucks, and the 7 day drug tests for no more than $50 ... how does that come out to more than $400 a month? $400 is the lower average to, many get more ... explain that ...

It's spelled out for you above.

Again, you aren't looking at the whole picture. One test = one benefit denial is not a realistic scenario. You will only get about 3 benefit denials per 100 test, if that. You will pay for 100 test to catch 3 users. Or are you just going to test the users.....oh shit....we don't know who they are. That's why we test.

Jesus christ. You have to be smarter than this.

uh, did you have a source for this specific statistic or can we all just make shit up on the fly?

 

[Peejay]

Seriously? How can drug costing be as expensive as people want you to think? You can buy the cheap-o tests for $25 bucks, and the 7 day drug tests for no more than $50 ... how does that come out to more than $400 a month? $400 is the lower average to, many get more ... explain that ...

It's spelled out for you above.

Again, you aren't looking at the whole picture. One test = one benefit denial is not a realistic scenario. You will only get about 3 benefit denials per 100 test, if that. You will pay for 100 test to catch 3 users. Or are you just going to test the users.....oh shit....we don't know who they are. That's why we test.

Jesus christ. You have to be smarter than this.

uh, did you have a source for this specific statistic or can we all just make shit up on the fly?

Well yes, it was made up on the fly. The stats show that testing reveals 6 - 8% positive. The new testing laws allow for a re test within 60 days. I'm just trying to figure how many will actually fail the retest and lose benefits. How many do you think ? I went with 50 - 50.

 

[Shogun]

It's spelled out for you above.

Again, you aren't looking at the whole picture. One test = one benefit denial is not a realistic scenario. You will only get about 3 benefit denials per 100 test, if that. You will pay for 100 test to catch 3 users. Or are you just going to test the users.....oh shit....we don't know who they are. That's why we test.

Jesus christ. You have to be smarter than this.

uh, did you have a source for this specific statistic or can we all just make shit up on the fly?

Well yes, it was made up on the fly. The stats show that testing reveals 6 - 8% positive. The new testing laws allow for a re test within 60 days. I'm just trying to figure how many will actually fail the retest and lose benefits. How many do you think ? I went with 50 - 50.

thats all you needed to say. Thanks for admitting that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about and are willing to toss out bullshit stats in lieu of evidence.


ps.. the threat of a random piss test will do more than your silly fabricated numbers will ever achieve. Users don't tend to apply at jobs that openly drug test for fear that they will be picked to piss. The same will apply once FS are filtered by drug tests. And, if we've got an entire fucking probation system chin deep in drug tests, seat patches and color coded fucking testing procedures that doesn't bankrupt the nation I assure you that the same can, and will, be applied to tax based non-required subsidies.

 

[Peejay]

uh, did you have a source for this specific statistic or can we all just make shit up on the fly?

Well yes, it was made up on the fly. The stats show that testing reveals 6 - 8% positive. The new testing laws allow for a re test within 60 days. I'm just trying to figure how many will actually fail the retest and lose benefits. How many do you think ? I went with 50 - 50.

thats all you needed to say. Thanks for admitting that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about and are willing to toss out bullshit stats in lieu of evidence.


ps.. the threat of a random piss test will do more than your silly fabricated numbers will ever achieve. Users don't tend to apply at jobs that openly drug test for fear that they will be picked to piss. The same will apply once FS are filtered by drug tests. And, if we've got an entire fucking probation system chin deep in drug tests, seat patches and color coded fucking testing procedures that doesn't bankrupt the nation I assure you that the same can, and will, be applied to tax based non-required subsidies.

Sorry man. I can't find any stats on how many people fail second chance drug test. I looked for them. Like I said, I split 50 - 50. Again, feel free to give me another number and we'll make the analysis over again. Even at 100% failure of second chance test, you still don't cover the $67,000 and they are right back in in 2 years.

The threat is taken into consideration. That is a red herring. The positive rates are from pre employment and random drug tests. The threat exist and the rate is 6 - 8%. The same level reported in the Michigan foray into this.

The probation test COST MONEY. I don't see any relevance there unless you want to find out just how much it cost.

 

[Shogun]

of course probation piss tests cost money. Yet we still require them despite the cost. funny how that works.

 

[Peejay]

of course probation piss tests cost money. Yet we still require them despite the cost. funny how that works.

Well, then I accept your argument. You seem to be willing to spend more money in the food stamp program in order to deny food stamps.

 

[Shogun]

your cost red herring is getting old. Do you need to make up some more figures or something?

 

[Peejay]

your cost red herring is getting old. Do you need to make up some more figures or something?

No. My entire argument is based on cost. Has been from the start.

I already agree with you that drug users shouldn't be subsidizing their habit with PA. I just think it will cost more to stop them than it does to tolerate minimal abuse.

 

[Shogun]

We won't agree on what is acceptable "minimal abuse". This is why drug tests are necessary regardless of cost.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, some guy who just lost his job smokes a joint and gets denied his unemployment benefits, even though he's a good solid worker, and he's looking for work everyday. Now he can't feed his kids or make his rent payment. Oh well, guess he'll learn. Of course, the guy sitting in the bar, closing it down everynight, and not even trying to find a job, will continue to collect his bennies and continue to drink them away. Alcohol is legal and all, so no biggie.

I think Alcohol should be included in the testing. If you want our money, then you must jump through our hoops.

Yes it should include ALL drugs, and that includes alcohol. I support legalizing marijuana, but if you going to take my hard earned money, then you need to be stone (pun intended) sober.

And if you don't live your life absolutely letter-perfect at all times by my particular standards, then by God, your children should STARVE!

Of course, if they were capable of being perfect, they probably wouldn't be needing federal assistance, now would they?

 

[KittenKoder]

I think Alcohol should be included in the testing. If you want our money, then you must jump through our hoops.

Yes it should include ALL drugs, and that includes alcohol. I support legalizing marijuana, but if you going to take my hard earned money, then you need to be stone (pun intended) sober.

And if you don't live your life absolutely letter-perfect at all times by my particular standards, then by God, your children should STARVE!

Of course, if they were capable of being perfect, they probably wouldn't be needing federal assistance, now would they?

Junkies shouldn't be allowed to harm children the way they do.

 

[Shogun]

I think Alcohol should be included in the testing. If you want our money, then you must jump through our hoops.

Yes it should include ALL drugs, and that includes alcohol. I support legalizing marijuana, but if you going to take my hard earned money, then you need to be stone (pun intended) sober.

And if you don't live your life absolutely letter-perfect at all times by my particular standards, then by God, your children should STARVE!

Of course, if they were capable of being perfect, they probably wouldn't be needing federal assistance, now would they?

no one is asking for a fucking dress inspection at 6am. The melodrama doesn't help your case. If you can't afford food then you can't afford pot. Bottom line. If you think devoting pot smoking time to getting a fucking job is so horrible then I guess it's a good thing you REALLY don't live in an era of mass poverty. Fuck YES laudenum junkies need more money! Who the fuck is going to subsidize their semi-lucid state of bed ridden euphoria?!?!

 

[jeffrockit]

no i do not agree with it..... we have a right to privacy....or we are suppose to and this is a slippery slope, why should the 92% who do not use drugs be subjected to this invasion of privacy or humiliated and made to take a test that is NONE of your or the government's business, these people ARE THE GOVERNMENT if it is the government of the people?

utter bullshit!!!!

If those 92% have nothing to hide, why should they care about an "invasion of privacy?"

Because it's an invasion of privacy you fucking idiot. So do you want a cop to come search your home whenever he wants to? You have nothing to hide. Just give the govt a key to your house and let them walk in and search whether you are there or not. You have nothing to hide.

Its not more of an invasion of privacy than the workplace requiring a drug test. Even in the private sector their are hoops (random drug tests) one has to jump thru for their money. Why should they be treated any different than the ones on gov. assistance?

 

[jeffrockit]

Anyone taking government assistance more than six months in a two year period should be subject to random testing. If indeed you are in need of government assistance you have no business buying drugs in the first place it is not a monetarily sound decision and is systematically canceling out the reason you applied for assistance.
You do have rights as an American citizen to privacy. However, once you apply for assistance you are now becoming subject to the conditions of the assistance in the same manner you become subject to interest if you take out a loan.

In the Army we are subject to random UA's. All you are doing is peeing in a cup. Big freakin deal. I dont get any extra benefits for doing it. However, it must be done in order for me to recieve my paycheck. Who are you to tell me that the person who I am paying every month should not be subject to the same drug test that I am in order to recieve money that I earned?

It is a big deal. You gave away your rights in the army. We didn't.

Oh yea, they said on the Ron Reagan show too that all you are going to find is pot smokers if you drug test, because most drugs leave the system in a couple days. Maybe the person isn't buying the pot. Ever think of that?

Also, what about the kids? Dad may smoke a joint. That doesn't mean let the kids go without food.

PS. If we are collecting unemployment, we earned it. We paid into it. So we deserve it, no matter what we spend the money on.

No that's wrong. You give away your rights when you take another person's money (government assistance). Just like you give up a right when you work for a company that requires drug testing. You liberals and your pot..sheesh you would think it was your life's blood.
Regarding the dad and the joint. That means he spent money on a bag of weed and something else did not get that money, water bill, electric bill etc. Again, if you are in the position that you need government assistance, buying something like weed, 6 pack is just selfish to the situation. If you are taking government money, it means that taxpayers are paying for that bag of weed you so dearly need.

 

[jeffrockit]

Its fun watching potheads come unglued as they struggle to justify their existance.

lmao

Funny! It does seem like much fun to watch though. These potheads will defend it as if it was their last meal on earth. They start slobbering and cursing all over the boards and screaming civil rights and unconstitutional. They should just have a hit and calm down.