Thoughts on drug testing welfare recipients?

Got your goat? Explain...

great, as long as we're going to drug test everyone else.

um...no.

If the government is supporting them....then its good to make sure they arent just spending it on drugs.

And...we DO drug test everyone else (at least a lot of companies do).

If they are really having such troubles with their lives, maybe sitting around getting drugged isnt the best idea? Maybe they should be putting that money and effort into actually getting out of their sittuation instead of just dulling the pain and continuing to expect everyone else to pick up the tab?

If they need help with the drug problems, thats ok, we WANT TO HELP. Society has programs that will help them past it and back onto a normal life...the goal isnt to just keep paying people to get high, its to give them money to survive so they can get back on their feet.

Drug users are the people who need help and support the most.

I kind of understand drug testing welfare recipients - as long as the intention is to provide extra support/therapy for them.

If, however, the purpose is cutting them out of the system if they test positive...(and I get the impression that this is the case)...totally 100% counterproductive.

And it kind of makes my blood boil that anyone thinks this is an awesome idea.

Hmm, maybe.

If the purpose is to cut them out of the system if they test positive, that would place the responsibility to find help onto the person...they will have to WANT to get off drugs (even if the only reason is to qualify for money).

Perhaps the best method would be to give them welfare if they test positive AND place them into drug programs AND give them the condition that improvement on their condition is a criteria of continued welfare support (so they get help in both ways, but also have a reason to WANT to be cured).

Original Post by loriklorik:

If the government is supporting them....then its good to make sure they arent just spending it on drugs.

my left brain is saying "do not engage" but my right brain must counter.

"the government" is supporting all of us.  do you want it dictating how you spend your money?

Original Post by loriklorik:

And...we DO drug test everyone else (at least a lot of companies do).

some people is not everyone.

Original Post by loriklorik:

If they are really having such troubles with their lives, maybe sitting around getting drugged isnt the best idea? Maybe they should be putting that money and effort into actually getting out of their sittuation instead of just dulling the pain and continuing to expect everyone else to pick up the tab?

 illness.  look it up.

Original Post by loriklorik:

If they need help with the drug problems, thats ok, we WANT TO HELP. Society has programs that will help them past it and back onto a normal life...the goal isnt to just keep paying people to get high, its to give them money to survive so they can get back on their feet.

do a little research into those "programs" that "society" has, lorik, and you'll find out they're usually neither effective nor accessible.  they're built on cost-savings models, not on models of what actually works (what works is far more expensive, at least in the short term).

stick to what you know, okay?  whatever that is.

As per usual, totally agree with PG.

Also wanted to add that a lot of drug users have children. Sad but true. And by cutting drug users out of the system, you are also screwing with their kid's ability to eat food and wear clothes.

Side note: Isnt there some bible quote about how sons shouldnt have to pay for the sins of their fathers?

So.... you are saying the government should give them money and have no restrictions on how they spend it? You understand thats not the way a lot of programs work (for the very reason that people will spend it on drugs or other non-essential things that the program isnt intended for).

We test a lot of people (and I would support more wide-spread testing as long as its non intrusive). But, there are LOTS of companies that do regular screening...why dont you have issues with that? And those screenings are for the opportunity to EARN the money.

Just passing everything off as "illness" is nieve. You can say anything is an illness (and most people do now aday). I like to sleep a lot because i have an illness. I dont want to workout today because I have an illness. I dont want to work because I have an illness. Thats BS. People become addicted, thats a problem, but you can be addicted and still realize you need help.

do a little research into those "programs" that "society" has, lorik, and you'll find out they're usually neither effective nor accessible.  they're built on cost-savings models, not on models of what actually works (what works is far more expensive, at least in the short term).

So we need more / better programs. Thats another issue all together. There is a balance between wanting to help people and the costs associated with it..... there are lots of other things that money needs to be spent on (welcome to what a national budget is)

Original Post by loriklorik:

So.... you are saying the government should give them money and have no restrictions on how they spend it?

Why not?

Didnt you receive the latest Obama economic stimulus check? I dont know about yours, but mine didnt require a drug test.

Nor do the monthly government payments my husband receives for being a disabled veteran.

Plenty of government payments, benefits, tax loopholes, and subsidies dont require drug tests.

you are naive, buddy.  very.  people who are addicted to the point of being unable to work and sustain a residence are almost always mentally ill as well as addicted.  millions (tens - hundreds of millions?) of addicted/substance abusing people have jobs, pay rent, own houses, drive cars.  the difference between them and those on welfare is usually mental illness.  concurrent disorders. 

government funding that's for housing should go to housing.  government funding that's for education should go to education.  but telling people what they can and cannot ingest, or judging their eligibility based on how they spend their pocket money, is not okay.

we test a lot of people, yes, but except for incarcerated people, it's essentially voluntary.  you want this great job?  cool.  get tested.  you want to b eligible to win an olympic medal?  okay.  you're going to get tested.  don't want to play?  okay.  go play somewhere else. 

to place that kind of condition of subsitence income, for people who are mostly unemployable, is an entirely different matter.

For some reason, possibly lack of sleep, I thought the OP meant that we should test experimental drugs on folks that recieve welfare.  I was mortified.

aw, jewels.  it is late where you are.  go to bed, sweetheart.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

  but telling people what they can and cannot ingest, or judging their eligibility based on how they spend their pocket money, is not okay. 

 LOL! What????

Umm...you realize its ILLEGAL right?.... you realize there are LAWS against it?.... they arent addicted to nyquil ...

yep.  like i said in my first post, unless we're going to test everyone, it's not okay to test welfare recipients.  and all you american freedom-fighting patriots are not going to subject yourself to drug testing (and neither are we peace-keeping canadians).

Um drug testing would just cost more money.

So lorilik, what about the guy who spends his welfare check on booze?  Not illegal.  Perfectly legal.  But could be considered just as much of a "waste" or however you see it. 

Is it okay to be addicted to Nyquil?  Are you anymore a healthy member of society if you use Nyquil to get high vs. crack?  And yes there are people... watch yourself some Intervention on A&E.  Nyquil, drinking Listerine, eating hand sanitizer. 

Basically drug testing welfare recipients is not the kind of thing we need to improve welfare.  Like pgeorgian said, many people fall into the category of mentally disabled.  And this often combines with drug use.  A large number of those people have no where to go.  Many are held in prison, and then let out with no access to regular mental health services.  Or what about moms with children who need a job/training/childcare.  And what about the people who are truley addicts who need effective rehabilitation and counsling (most people cant just quit cold turkey and go to NA, they need to go through detox and some level of rehab).  They would all be better served by taking the money that would be used to drug test and putting it toward improving social services.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

people who are addicted to the point of being unable to work and sustain a residence are almost always mentally ill as well as addicted. 

 So... basically, poor people are mentally ill and we should give them money to live and do whatever they want because theres just no other option.

Helping them overcome their problems is just too "out there" and we should instead keep throwing money at them to support their lifestyle?

You see, I don't think everyone without money is just stupid / mentally handicapped to a point of no-return .... I think drugs are a big contributor in keeping them from being able to turn around and have a productive / healthy life (for themselves and their children). I think society CAN help a lot of these people....but in order for that to happen, we need to step in and find out where they need help.

If they arent asking for handouts, thats ok, they can live however they like....they should be free to live poor if they want. But when they come to my (societies) doorstep and say "give me money", i think we shouldnt just blindly write them checks...

There is an old saying, maybe you know it.... give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Original Post by tortoisewins:

So lorilik, what about the guy who spends his welfare check on booze?  Not illegal.  Perfectly legal.  But could be considered just as much of a "waste" or however you see it. 

 Booze should be the same. Basically, we should look at people taking welfare and try to idenfity what is keeping them in a state that requires the welfare.

It might be addictions of all kinds, it might be they have a large family and need more education to secure a better job (in which case, we should have programs to help move these people up), it might be they have mental issues (medication or other help should be provided), it might be they just dont want to work (thats a problem, if they dont really have any problem and havent even tried looking for work...well...they wouldnt qualify, and i dont believe they do under the current system anyway).

Just throwing money at them without trying to help isnt solving anything...

But when they come to my (societies) doorstep and say "give me money", i think we shouldnt just blindly write them checks...

You have a society?  All your own?  whose in it? Teasing..

Anyway, people seem to have this funny idea that welfare is super easy to attain.  It's actually not, though it is true they dont do drug testing at this stage in the game, it's not like you can just walk down to city hall and say give me money.

First fill out an application.  Then after the application is complete you must go in for an interview.  You then submit documentation, and then after DSHS decides if you even qualify for services.

I remember a girl in my college class who needed to go on welfare so she could afford to pay for school and take care of her child.  Pretty reasonable.  And she had a hard time getting it. It wasn't like daddy warbucks was hanging out a plane throwing cash down.

I can understand wanting to test welfare reciepents. Most people I know that are on welfare are either selling their food stamps for cash to get some drugs, or they're abusing their privileges. To figure out whose abusing the system is a bit harder than that however. There are lots of ways to cheat on the application and make it seem as you need it, then use those funds for other things. I have to agree with the fact that, if you DO screen someone and they fail (and happens to lose welfare because of it.), it could be taking food from the mouths of the children in the household.

With that, I think there could be a better way to improve the welfare system. However, screening for drug test will not only NOT (I know it's a double negative) improve the system, it will only make it worst by costing more money from taxpayers.

Test them.  If they're clean, no problem.  If they're addicted to illegal drugs, remove them from the welfare system. 

Druggies shouldn't be raising children to begin with.  The money saved could be used to improve the foster care programs and the drug programs.  Drug tests are much cheaper than welfare payments made to druggies.

Sorry...I work for a living, and I pay taxes.  I resent my tax dollars going to support illegal drug habits of those that don't work, and don't care to get help for their addiction.  I'd rather see it spent on drug rehab programs...

A drug is a drug.  It is common for welfare folks to smoke and to use some of their 'income' for cigs instead of putting all the money into their children or their own health.  So you want to test for nicotine and how about you test for sugar cause maybe they are buying 'too much' junk food?  My hubby is a social worker in the System and yes, right now, hordes are coming with all kinds of reasons for needing Welfare.  If a person complains of a mental illness, such as depression, the worker has to sign them up for a medical eval.  Right now the system does not say no to a medical eval.  That medical eval costs us taxpayers money.  Hubby may know for a fact that the person is just trying to get some cash and has nothing wrong with him or her but he has been dictated to sign them up for the eval.  Can be crazy making.