Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Would be nice but...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Inactive Member imported_elp6n's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 31st, 2004
    Posts
    5,510
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Would be nice but...

    ... we know it'll never pass. Too many opponents already. Dont want to lose their voting base.

    If the recipients are on welfare - then they dont need to be spending $ on drugs. And if they're on welfare they'll have something like Medicaid to pay for Drs visits - so there's no excuse for using narcotics illegally IF there's something actually medically wrong - otherwise they're being bought off the street. And if you have money to buy these things you dont need welfare.

    Want to go on welfare? Just say no to drugs - Life- msnbc.com

    Want to go on welfare? Just say no to drugs

    Lawmakers in some states want recipients to submit to random testing

    APTRANS
    updated 7:25 a.m. ET, Thurs., March. 26, 2009
    CHARLESTON, W.Va. - 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'
    "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.

    Crisis adds pressure to budgets
    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.

    Soaring unemployment claims
    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.
    You'll shoot your eye out.

    [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v635/elp6n/santa.jpg[/img]

  2. #2
    Inactive Member pvfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 22nd, 2002
    Posts
    8,518
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Would be nice but...

    Good idea in general, however many people who get these services have children. What happens to the children? Plus, if you start drug testing these people what happens when anybody goes to the doctor? By and large there is a reason anybody has a problem, do you start turning away people because they are overweight? You'll just end up with more homeless people and we all know how Americans feel about the homeless. Bad idea imo.
    [img]http://www.gifsoup.com/view7/2505516/brandon-phillips-dugout-dance-o.gif[/img]

  3. #3
    Inactive Member imported_elp6n's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 31st, 2004
    Posts
    5,510
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Would be nice but...

    If druggies have children (welfare or not) the kids shouldn't be with them until mom/dad dry out.
    You'll shoot your eye out.

    [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v635/elp6n/santa.jpg[/img]

  4. #4
    Inactive Member pvfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 22nd, 2002
    Posts
    8,518
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Would be nice but...

    Define druggies. You going to include alcohol and nicotine into this?
    [img]http://www.gifsoup.com/view7/2505516/brandon-phillips-dugout-dance-o.gif[/img]

  5. #5
    Inactive Member imported_elp6n's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 31st, 2004
    Posts
    5,510
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Would be nice but...

    Oh come on. I'm not getting into a ridiculous hypothetical argument. Neither alcohol nor nicotine are illegal (and alcohol is if underaged).
    We're talking illegal street drugs and illegal narcotics use (meaning that oxycontin, lortab, percocet, etc. they dont have a prescription for - which is illegal to even possess let alone use)

    People lose their jobs using these things by their own choice (I dont see anyone arguing "oh the children" there)- why not welfare benefits too.
    You'll shoot your eye out.

    [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v635/elp6n/santa.jpg[/img]

  6. #6
    Inactive Member pvfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 22nd, 2002
    Posts
    8,518
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Would be nice but...

    I'm not trying to get into a hypothetical ridiculous argument, just trying to figure out where you stand. Personally, I think a parent that comes home and smokes a joint is a much less danger than a habitual alcoholic.
    [img]http://www.gifsoup.com/view7/2505516/brandon-phillips-dugout-dance-o.gif[/img]

  7. #7
    Inactive Member R13's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 25th, 2007
    Posts
    10,269
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Would be nice but...

    Its a great idea, hope it passes. And take their kids away if they're druggies, they'd probably be better off and might end up in a good home. I really don't know have a clue to how it would turn into something about obesity, apples and oranges and I don't think that'd happen at all. If you're just living on welfare for years and years, then it's your fault if you end up homeless. If you aren't doing the drugs and buying drugs with your welfare money, then you won't have a problem with being tested.

  8. #8
    Inactive Member pvfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 22nd, 2002
    Posts
    8,518
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Would be nice but...

    It can apply to most things in life if this passes. If you agree with this, you probably don't think you should have to pay for somebody who ate bad, became a diabetic and needs medial attention either. Both are their own fault, same can be said for an alcoholic, smoker, etc. We already see differences in insurance for smokers as it is.
    [img]http://www.gifsoup.com/view7/2505516/brandon-phillips-dugout-dance-o.gif[/img]

  9. #9
    Inactive Member R13's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 25th, 2007
    Posts
    10,269
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Would be nice but...

    But those things aren't illegal, food is a necessity. I would much rather someone over indulge with food, as opposed to heroin or pills. Alcohol and tobacco are certainly bad for you, I agree that its worse for you then marijuana, but ones illegal and ones not. If a person is working and making their own money, I don't care if they toke it up everyday, but when it comes to us paying the bill its different.


    How is this any different then a employer making his workers take a drug test? If a person can lose their check for testing positive and they're working, shouldn't a person who isn't working lose theirs for doing the same?

  10. #10
    Inactive Member pvfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 22nd, 2002
    Posts
    8,518
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Would be nice but...

    As I said on the premise it's a good idea, your going to end up spending more money by eliminating it. People will do whatever it takes if you take their check, thus stealing or whatever. Plus, your going to have to house and take care of their children, I just don't see it as a wise move when our government is in huge debt as it is.
    [img]http://www.gifsoup.com/view7/2505516/brandon-phillips-dugout-dance-o.gif[/img]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •