drug testing for welfare recipients ?

[Indiana Mike]

Recently a neighboring county began testing it recipients of county provided aid .

Test positive and you get zero bennies . You can however continue to receive them if you complete a rehab program and remain drug free.

Yes ,it includes pot....

I believe in this for my own reasons and won't go any further than saying I pay a lot of tax . The state is now considering doing the same .

We have a huge meth problem and prescription drug abuse problem here in this area. If you are able to partake in consumption and can be a self sufficient citizen go for it .

Don't ride on my back unless you are truly in trouble . I firmly believe in taking care of those in society that really need it .

[pocketgroove]

I don't think this thread will stay open long.

That being said, I can see your point and the value of the idea. I don't have any problem with people who need aid and are trying to better their position in life. However, I know a lot of people who just collect and collect, they don't work, and they don't contribute.

On the other hand, such extensive drug testing would cost money, as well as inconveniencing those who would test negative anyway. There's no practical way to test everyone, but if you have to choose certain people to test, then there will be some sort of backlash.

[Etienned]

They should stop to subsidize and offer tax incentives to any corporation that doesn't respect the laws. Way more money to save IMHO.

[Tony Flow MMMM]

Uh oh

[Thick McRunfast]

An argument against http://m.statesman.com/news/news/opi...riority/nS8Hs/

[JimB52]

If a parent tests positive and loses benefits, what happens to that persons children? Do they also lose benefits?

[knumbskull]

Originally Posted by JimB52

If a parent tests positive and loses benefits, what happens to that persons children? Do they also lose benefits?

/\/\/\ indeed.

I think there was a thread about this a while ago... the above point is just one of many complications that might cloud the situation. I guess it's good if they take into account people going into rehab.

I wonder what the cost/saving balance of such a venture would be. My guess is, 'not profitable', except to the companies doing the testing.

[spade2you]

Yeah, this will get closed soon-ish.

I see a good amount of folks at my hospital that some might say abuse the system.

[MrLenny1]

I'm all for it.

[4dog]

Test em

[Stinsok]

My concern is where benefits are used. I hear things about people using EBT cards at strip clubs, cruise ships, etc.

[alembicguy]

Test them and if they are clean so be it. If they test dirty then deny the benefits for them and as for their children losing benefits because of the patents irresponsible and careless actions so be it. Part of being a parent is doing the right thing for your children. I don't like buying dime bags and meth unknowingly with my tax money!

[1958Bassman]

They're not getting the benefits so they can buy drugs, it's so they can feed, house and clothe themselves & buy what they need to get by.

I would like to see some kind of requirement to get their GED if they had quit school and get some additional work skills if they have a hard time getting a decent job, too. That would keep recipients from remaining stagnant WRT where they are and what they're capable of doing. Job counceling would be part of my plan, too.

[DWBass]

Originally Posted by JimB52

If a parent tests positive and loses benefits, what happens to that persons children? Do they also lose benefits?

The parents getting tested need to think about that! Can't find or won't look for a job but got money to get high?? Where does that leave the children? In someone else's hands, unfortunately!

[alembicguy]

Originally Posted by DWBass

The parents getting tested need to think about that! Can't find or won't look for a job but got money to get high?? Where does that leave the children? In someone else's hands, unfortunately!

Agreed!
Years ago I worked for a company as a maintenance man that remodeled low income housing units. I saw first hand people burning up their welfare checks on drugs,casinos,liquor while their children depended on child support or school programs to keep them clothed and fed. The parents did not care. I've heard it said more than once,"why should I get a job when I get everything for free now".

[sloasdaylight]

If I remember correctly, Florida tried a program like this either statewide or in a few counties municipalities recently, and it wound up costing the state more than it saved.

[spade2you]

There is currently no punishment, so one does not have to care.

[Phalex]

This whole idea is predicated on the mistaken belief that people are on welfare because they are lazy drug users rather than the idea that times are tough and good people need help from time to time.

How much additional money is going to be spent on testing the entire welfare population VS the cost savings of removing the 5% or less of recipients that actually drop dirty?

Congratulations! You just added a whole bunch of new costs to your welfare system!

[spade2you]

Originally Posted by Phalex

This whole idea is predicated on the mistaken belief that people are on welfare because they are lazy drug users rather than the idea that times are tough and good people need help from time to time.

How much additional money is going to be spent on testing the entire welfare population VS the cost savings of removing the 5% or less of recipients that actually drop dirty?

Congratulations! You just added a whole bunch of new costs to your welfare system!

Perhaps it's 5% or less. I've seen more than a few welfare recipients admitted to the hospital as a result of polysubstance abuse.

Take away their benefits and the government ends up still picking up the hospital tab, anyway.

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by Phalex

This whole idea is predicated on the mistaken belief that people are on welfare because they are lazy drug users rather than the idea that times are tough and good people need help from time to time.

How much additional money is going to be spent on testing the entire welfare population VS the cost savings of removing the 5% or less of recipients that actually drop dirty?

Congratulations! You just added a whole bunch of new costs to your welfare system!

This.

Like with everything else particularly attention grabbing minorities* will skew the public perception of the whole. Similarly to how many would like to think Alex Jones is an accurate portrayal of gun rights activists, and Dianne Feinstein is an accurate portrayal of anti-gun folks. There are many more examples of this that could be cited, but I think my meaning is clear. I don't believe that the majority of welfare recipients are nothing more than life long drug users abusing the system, and for that reason I don't think drug testing welfare recipients will save more money than it will cost. I think in certain areas that behavior may be prevalent, so testing recipients from those areas could be warranted, but then you're opening a whole different can of worms that I'm not going to get into.

Like I said earlier, if it winds up saving the state/municipality money, then I'm all for it, but if you do it for a few months or whatever, and you wind up with a net loss, it's time to stop the policy, since it's not doing what you wanted it to do. A better way to handle the situation is to prevent those on EBT to take out more than so much money per week in cash of their card. My Ex's ex-husband, who lost his job and is on government assistance says that the EBT card functions essentially just like a debit card, and you can get cash back from it as long as there's got money loaded into the card.


*minorities here obviously means the actual definition, meaning a small percentage of the population, so no one get their panties in a bunch.