States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[T-Bor]

Yep, its that lousy logic that one thing is legal, so (fill in the blank) should be legal too, wont buy you a cup of air at the local cafe.

Alcohol has destroyed enough lives, so lets back up and see you use that logic now. or will you tell us that pot is a harmless drug, and the only thing thats bad about it is that its illegal?

In that case, tell me why in the early 80s, a well known and published MEDICAL report came out and stated that 1000s of pot smokers had quit, and were documented quitting, for the reason that they were feeling paranoid and unstable, the longer they smoked?

Now...perhaps that explains all the poor mental health today, but its SURELY not a selling point for legalizing pot.

Go look at the crime rate in the Netherlands, then look at the crime rate here in America. Then come to talk to me..Dope...No pun intended. People should be allowed to do what they want to their own bodies. Pot is ALOT more harmless than alcohol. The statistics prove it. Pot has 3 side effects. Happy, hungry sleepy. That's it. People kill themselves by drinking too much. Ever hear of someone smoking themselves to death? Lighten up people. There is NOTHING wrong with legalizing marijuana. It's unbelievable what our country demonizes and tells us is wrong. While we have shit ten times worse that is legal. Fucking amazing.

 

[Care4all]

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!!!!

 

[auditor0007]

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!!!!

Excellent Point Care.

 

[Peejay]

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!!!!

Of course, the slippery slope is a short one to testing for SS benefits, drivers license, whatever else the governement wants to use as an excuse to pry into your personal life.

Not to mention that out of the small percentage that test positive, an even smaller percentage are addicts or even regular users. The percentage that fits this largely imaginary profile of rampant food stamp trading for drugs is miniscule. There are more parents out there beating their kids senseless, while sober, than trading their food stamps for drugs.

 

[Zook]

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!!!!

Excellent Point Care.

I think drug testing would be a good idea for any one trying to live off of the Government. Maybe it would be a humiliation to those on welfare that never had a job. Those who have had a couple jobs would understand this is standard procedure to get a drug test to get money. I think it is all of our Governments business. Just like it is the employers business if their potential employee does drugs or not. Why should the gov give money so some one who will just smoke it up. So I would also be in favor for the gov. to give them money that could only buy certain things. IM a college student and I live off of nearly nothing. I only buy things I need. They shouldn't be able to buy food like steak or luxury food. They can try ramen noodles, mac and cheese, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and meals with large portions of rice like me. They should be grateful for what they get. They can at least obey the law and not do illegal drugs.

 

[Zoomie1980]

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site - notwithmytaxdollars.com - that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia - tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

My Way News - States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Nothing different about than than the rules proposed for federal bailouts. You take federal money, you accept federal rules, which can be draconian in many cases. If it works for Wall St, it works for Main St. and the trailer-park, too.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Yep, its that lousy logic that one thing is legal, so (fill in the blank) should be legal too, wont buy you a cup of air at the local cafe.

Alcohol has destroyed enough lives, so lets back up and see you use that logic now. or will you tell us that pot is a harmless drug, and the only thing thats bad about it is that its illegal?

In that case, tell me why in the early 80s, a well known and published MEDICAL report came out and stated that 1000s of pot smokers had quit, and were documented quitting, for the reason that they were feeling paranoid and unstable, the longer they smoked?

Now...perhaps that explains all the poor mental health today, but its SURELY not a selling point for legalizing pot.

So just to be clear, would you be in favor of denying the benefits to people who drink?

You take the money, you play by the rules the giver sets. If they say you can't drink, you can't drink. If they say you can't sing, you can't sing. You take the "man's" money, the "man" gets to set ALL the rules!!!

 

[Peejay]

Yep, its that lousy logic that one thing is legal, so (fill in the blank) should be legal too, wont buy you a cup of air at the local cafe.

Alcohol has destroyed enough lives, so lets back up and see you use that logic now. or will you tell us that pot is a harmless drug, and the only thing thats bad about it is that its illegal?

In that case, tell me why in the early 80s, a well known and published MEDICAL report came out and stated that 1000s of pot smokers had quit, and were documented quitting, for the reason that they were feeling paranoid and unstable, the longer they smoked?

Now...perhaps that explains all the poor mental health today, but its SURELY not a selling point for legalizing pot.

So just to be clear, would you be in favor of denying the benefits to people who drink?

You take the money, you play by the rules the giver sets. If they say you can't drink, you can't drink. If they say you can't sing, you can't sing. You take the "man's" money, the "man" gets to set ALL the rules!!!

Let's be clear here: The man says NO ONE can use drugs. You understand that there is a LIFETIME FEDERAL BAN on drug felons recieving welfare ? We already set the rules and if you get caught, you don't get the money.

You are stating the obvious. Of course you aren't supposed to use drugs, they are illegal. The question is, how far do wish to go, how much money are you ready to spend ? Do you think it's worth it ? Grab the numbers, do the math and tell me what it will cost and what it will save. I'm not prepared to spend extra dough because some people have a personal axe to grind with welfare recipients. Are you ready to drug test Social Security recipients too ? They take Federal money too. Maybe we should test them. And so long as we are testing and setting rules, maybe if you ever drink alcohol, EVER, we should take your license. We'll test you every so often to keep an eye on you.

 

[Jon]

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?"

 

[Jon]

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.

Almost any worker is going to have to subject themselves to random drug testing in the workplace. They have to pass a drug test when hired, and they can be randomly selected while on the job. Why should workers have to stay clean AND work for their money, but welfare benefactors can take our hard-earned tax dollars and dope up whenever they want without consequence?

Fuck that.

 

[Father Time]

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 the government has no damn business invading the privacy of citizens (even if it is just ot make sure they're obeying the law) and it's just so very wrong.

 

[Jon]

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 the government has no damn business invading the privacy of citizens (even if it is just ot make sure they're obeying the law) and it's just so very wrong.

And the government also doesn't have to give these people money to live off of, either. If I have to abide by the laws to keep my job to earn my living, these people should have to abide by the law to get their handouts.

Frankly, I'm tired of the free rides people in this country are getting. If random drug testing is one way to stop the gravy train, I'm all for it.

 

[Luissa]

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site - notwithmytaxdollars.com - that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia - tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

My Way News - States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

what about their children? Make the kids starve because of their parents mistakes, good idea!

 

[Jon]

Hey, take the kids and let them be wards of the state. We're already paying for their living expenses, right?

 

[Luissa]

Hey, take the kids and let them be wards of the state. We're already paying for their living expenses, right?

what if the parents test postive for something like pot and they don't do it around their children they should get their kids taken away?
And the issue of taking kids away due to their parents being drug addicts is up to CPS, maybe the real problem is there.
Now if they are single and getting food stamps and using drugs go right ahead and take them away. And if they have children why don't they spend that $400 dollars for testing and send them to a rehab facility and work with them to get off drugs so they can provide a better envirnment for their children along with keeping them.

 

[Jon]

So...married couples can do drugs, but single parents can't?

Your post made no sense, and I was half-joking/being a sarcastic ass in my last post. I'm just tired of money being handed out freely to every worthless fuck who's too lazy to work, and it's even more infuriating when those people are using my tax dollars to buy drugs instead of buying their kids decent clothes to go to school in.

That's why I think instead of welfare or SSI benefits, people who want government help instead should just be given a rent-free dwelling (apartment, house, trailer, whatever) that is sufficient for their needs, along with utilities, and enough groceries to feed their family. Clothing can be provided by charitable organizations or even some sort of government coupon program. No CASH should be given to these people, because likely, it's not being spent wisely.

 

[T-Bor]

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.

 

[Mr. President]

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?

 

[sealybobo]

They talked about this on the Ron Reagan show last night. Air America 6pm to 9pm.

It would cost more than the AIG bonus' to drug test them all.

And it is unconstitutional. Right to privacy and innoncent until proven guilty.

The courts have already stuck this down as unconstitutional several times

This is a political stunt

On the RON REAGAN SHOW, they said that under Ronald Reagan is when companies started drug testing. War on drugs.

I think Ronald Reagan meant well, but then again, so do most delusional, self richous Republicans.

 

[sealybobo]

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.