Drug testing for public assistance?

[Times Roman]

What do you think?

should we require a drug test for public housing and food stamps?

what good will that do?

will it be a deterrent to using drugs?

[diesel101]

At first I thought it was one of the best ideas ever but the more I think about it I am not sure. If it were a single person with no children I am all for it but what if their are children in the house? How will the kids get taken care of? Yes I know they should go get a job and feed their families but if they are lazy enough to live off of welfare they are too lazy to get a job. The only option would be to take the kids away if they are not cared for but where do they go? I am still undecided on this one.

[probuild42]

1. Yes. Should be required.

2. Yes. And impose penalities for improper use!

3. and 4. May not fix all the problems but maybe it will defer some of the issue's. If somebody cleaned up for a weeks in order to pass a test, at least it was a few weeks they were sober (especially with kids in the house).

[lovbyts]

If the parents cant pass a drug test shoukd they be raising the kids.

[Euroholic]

Wasn't there a thread about this? Were the cost of testing was more than the money saved.

Ill try to find it

[V-ROID]

Yes drug test. Yes keep receipts. Yes have penalties. If you got money to get high and don't care about failing a drug test for employment then you don't want help, you want to be totally taken care of. I would be for no drug testing upon sterilization or mandatory abortions. What we really need is about a year with no electricity so this mess can sort itself out.

[derekkpapa1]

I am all for it.
I know guy who takes ebt cards for drug payment from this crack head chick.
Woman have shit load of kids just to get extra money from state.
All free stuff.
My Friend (I don't agree) and his wife play poor and they get assistance from state so there kid need braces it cost them only $250 wtf my kid needs braces it's 5k and he makes more money doing contruction/landscaping then I do I get screw because I go legit.

[Hazard]

At first I thought it was one of the best ideas ever but the more I think about it I am not sure. If it were a single person with no children I am all for it but what if their are children in the house? How will the kids get taken care of? Yes I know they should go get a job and feed their families but if they are lazy enough to live off of welfare they are too lazy to get a job. The only option would be to take the kids away if they are not cared for but where do they go? I am still undecided on this one.

So the kids should stay with the parents even if they're irresponsible enough to use drugs when they don't even have a way to pay for them?

Those parents set a deadly course for their kids. If someone doesn't pull them out of that life style then they will likely fall into it themselves.

[Times Roman]

I think most would agree with this...

Require a drug screen prior to approval for government housing and public assistance. if they can't pass, they don't get to move in or get foodstamps/"gimme" cash.

And then maybe an annual screen. no surprises. not trying to throw people out on the street. but suppose they fail a drug screen. then maybe 10% of their "gimme cash" is held in a trust until they can pass the test?

[DrewZ]

I'm for it!
Welfare needs to be much harder to get, and with time constraints.
As a young kid, my family went through tough times and had to be on food stamps for a short period.
I believe welfare can grow into a cancer that destroys people.
I remember my parents being absolutely ashamed at having to get assistance and got out of that situation as quickly as possible.

ashamed/uncomfortable is the key here.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

[Times Roman]

I'm for it!
Welfare needs to be much harder to get, and with time constraints.
As a young kid, my family went through tough times and had to be on food stamps for a short period.
I believe welfare can grow into a cancer that destroys people.
I remember my parents being absolutely ashamed at having to get assistance and got out of that situation as quickly as possible.

ashamed/uncomfortable is the key here.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

admittedly, welfare has reformed somewhat.......

[Black]

I think the entire United States should be forced to take a test to determine if they are responsible enough to procreate. If they fail, castration, hysterectomy, whatever.

Kill the tree at the root. Just call me Mr. Problem Solver. Off topic?

[lovbyts]

Wasn't there a thread about this? Were the cost of testing was more than the money saved.

Ill try to find it

The results where manipulated and the only tested a select few who where in the areas that had little problem and no history of abuse.

[Bonaparte]

The big problem is that few drugs actually stay in your system for more than a few days (THC, benzos, PCP).
So you're mostly just going to catch (dumb) stoners, while people can use amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates and test clean 2 days later so long as they drink a bunch of water.
Oh, and the way it works (in Florida at least) is that only one person from the household has to go get tested when picking up the welfare check. So each family could just have 1 member abstain for a few days each month.
Awesome.

[Black]

The big problem is that few drugs actually stay in your system for more than a few days (THC, benzos, PCP).
So you're mostly just going to catch (dumb) stoners, while people can use amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates and test clean 2 days later.
Awesome.

Yep. Cocaine. Party on Friday and be clean by Monday.

[thegodfather]

I used to be in favor of legislation like this, but I've since changed my mind for numerous reasons, not least of which is the cost effectiveness of the program. It is not pragmatic, and the legislation is largely symbolic. The cost of testing versus the number of people who actually tested positive was infinitesimally small, so I believe the costs are prohibitive, and also add an additional layer of bureaucracy to an already cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus.

Additionally, as a Libertarian Republican (of the Ron/Rand Paul ilk) I oppose ANY and ALL pre-employment drug screening on principle. That is, that responsible adults may do what they wish in the privacy of their own home, and so long as they are not under the influence of active drugs while at work, and perform their duties, I could care less. I may be in favor of blood testing for active metabolites, as that would reveal someone under the influence at the time of work, but not the urinalysis which is indiscriminate and detects use of substances days and weeks old. Furthermore, I view drug dependency as a MEDICAL problem, that should be dealt with by the healthcare apparatus, these are sick people, not criminals. Unfortunately, denying aid to these people will not 'give them a wake up call,' or any other such nonsense, people stop doing drugs when they are tired of living that life (assuming that their drug use is abuse/dependency and it has a deleterious effect on their lives, there are scores of people who use illicit substances recreationally with little or no adverse effects to their personal lives). Ergo, I do not want to dictate the private goings on of peoples lives, be they gainfully employed or on the public dole, and I certainly do not want to separate children from their parents because they have some metabolites in their pee-pee, only if they present a dangerous or hazardous environment to their children should the state have a vested interest in the children's well being. Allowing the state to take custody of peoples children is a dangerous, slippery slope.

I don't believe that any self-respecting Republican who calls themselves a conservative in favor of civil liberties can be for drug testing, drug laws, or mandatory minimums. All of these things are anathema to the principles of conservatism, civil liberties, and a free society. Legislating what a person can legally put into their own bodies, is nothing more than an attempt to legislate one person or groups view of morality. We should only legislate BEHAVIOR, that is clearly observable and causes harm.

In closing, while it is "FAIR" that the people who take the money we give up in taxes should have to pass the same drug tests we must pass in order to maintain the employment that we use in order to have said money deducted from our paychecks, since I object to drug tests for employment anyway, I cannot in good conscience support yet another usurpation of civil liberties even if it makes the situation more equitable. Instead, I'd like to see companies abandon pre-employment drug screens via urinalysis, and switch to a system that only detects active drug/metabolite in the bloodstream, and stop making employment decisions/judgement's based on what free law abiding individuals do in the privacy of their own homes.

[diesel101]

So the kids should stay with the parents even if they're irresponsible enough to use drugs when they don't even have a way to pay for them?

Those parents set a deadly course for their kids. If someone doesn't pull them out of that life style then they will likely fall into it themselves.

I am not saying that the kids should stay with the parents that are using drugs I am just wondering what would happen to the thousands of kids that would be taken out of the homes.

Out of curiosity where does a child go when they are taken from parents due to drug use,abuse etc? Foster homes?

Lets not forget that in the eyes of the law that AAS is no different than any other illegal drug people are using.
But I doubt if to many welfare recipients are using AAS.

[Rwy]

I think they tried this in Florida but not sure of the outcome.

The real smart thing to do is start sending agents out to figure out if these people need it. A few years back I went on an appointment where an elderly couple (60's) had a 2 million brick home in Astoria Queens that was paid for. They were on all sorts of assistance and bragged about milking the system. They are better off searching out people like this and getting them off because there are a ton out there.

[Rwy]

I used to be in favor of legislation like this, but I've since changed my mind for numerous reasons, not least of which is the cost effectiveness of the program. It is not pragmatic, and the legislation is largely symbolic. The cost of testing versus the number of people who actually tested positive was infinitesimally small, so I believe the costs are prohibitive, and also add an additional layer of bureaucracy to an already cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus.

Additionally, as a Libertarian Republican (of the Ron/Rand Paul ilk) I oppose ANY and ALL pre-employment drug screening on principle. That is, that responsible adults may do what they wish in the privacy of their own home, and so long as they are not under the influence of active drugs while at work, and perform their duties, I could care less. I may be in favor of blood testing for active metabolites, as that would reveal someone under the influence at the time of work, but not the urinalysis which is indiscriminate and detects use of substances days and weeks old. Furthermore, I view drug dependency as a MEDICAL problem, that should be dealt with by the healthcare apparatus, these are sick people, not criminals. Unfortunately, denying aid to these people will not 'give them a wake up call,' or any other such nonsense, people stop doing drugs when they are tired of living that life (assuming that their drug use is abuse/dependency and it has a deleterious effect on their lives, there are scores of people who use illicit substances recreationally with little or no adverse effects to their personal lives). Ergo, I do not want to dictate the private goings on of peoples lives, be they gainfully employed or on the public dole, and I certainly do not want to separate children from their parents because they have some metabolites in their pee-pee, only if they present a dangerous or hazardous environment to their children should the state have a vested interest in the children's well being. Allowing the state to take custody of peoples children is a dangerous, slippery slope.

I don't believe that any self-respecting Republican who calls themselves a conservative in favor of civil liberties can be for drug testing, drug laws, or mandatory minimums. All of these things are anathema to the principles of conservatism, civil liberties, and a free society. Legislating what a person can legally put into their own bodies, is nothing more than an attempt to legislate one person or groups view of morality. We should only legislate BEHAVIOR, that is clearly observable and causes harm.

In closing, while it is "FAIR" that the people who take the money we give up in taxes should have to pass the same drug tests we must pass in order to maintain the employment that we use in order to have said money deducted from our paychecks, since I object to drug tests for employment anyway, I cannot in good conscience support yet another usurpation of civil liberties even if it makes the situation more equitable. Instead, I'd like to see companies abandon pre-employment drug screens via urinalysis, and switch to a system that only detects active drug/metabolite in the bloodstream, and stop making employment decisions/judgement's based on what free law abiding individuals do in the privacy of their own homes.

I agree that if you party from time to time but perform at work it should no matter. Most addicts are not going to get passed an interview and if they do they certainly wont make it more then a month.

[Times Roman]

I think the entire United States should be forced to take a test to determine if they are responsible enough to procreate. If they fail, castration, hysterectomy, whatever.

Kill the tree at the root. Just call me Mr. Problem Solver. Off topic?

sounds like my bigoted father - Remember All in the Family "Archie Bunker" (Carroll O'Connor)?

but of course, you are just kidding, right?

The big problem is that few drugs actually stay in your system for more than a few days (THC, benzos, PCP).
So you're mostly just going to catch (dumb) stoners, while people can use amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates and test clean 2 days later so long as they drink a bunch of water.
Oh, and the way it works (in Florida at least) is that only one person from the household has to go get tested when picking up the welfare check. So each family could just have 1 member abstain for a few days each month.
Awesome.

well, the initial test could be a follicle/hair test, so ANYTHING taken will show up. Not sure about the cost though....

I used to be in favor of legislation like this, but I've since changed my mind for numerous reasons, not least of which is the cost effectiveness of the program. It is not pragmatic, and the legislation is largely symbolic. The cost of testing versus the number of people who actually tested positive was infinitesimally small, so I believe the costs are prohibitive, and also add an additional layer of bureaucracy to an already cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus.

Additionally, as a Libertarian Republican (of the Ron/Rand Paul ilk) I oppose ANY and ALL pre-employment drug screening on principle. That is, that responsible adults may do what they wish in the privacy of their own home, and so long as they are not under the influence of active drugs while at work, and perform their duties, I could care less. I may be in favor of blood testing for active metabolites, as that would reveal someone under the influence at the time of work, but not the urinalysis which is indiscriminate and detects use of substances days and weeks old. Furthermore, I view drug dependency as a MEDICAL problem, that should be dealt with by the healthcare apparatus, these are sick people, not criminals. Unfortunately, denying aid to these people will not 'give them a wake up call,' or any other such nonsense, people stop doing drugs when they are tired of living that life (assuming that their drug use is abuse/dependency and it has a deleterious effect on their lives, there are scores of people who use illicit substances recreationally with little or no adverse effects to their personal lives). Ergo, I do not want to dictate the private goings on of peoples lives, be they gainfully employed or on the public dole, and I certainly do not want to separate children from their parents because they have some metabolites in their pee-pee, only if they present a dangerous or hazardous environment to their children should the state have a vested interest in the children's well being. Allowing the state to take custody of peoples children is a dangerous, slippery slope.

I don't believe that any self-respecting Republican who calls themselves a conservative in favor of civil liberties can be for drug testing, drug laws, or mandatory minimums. All of these things are anathema to the principles of conservatism, civil liberties, and a free society. Legislating what a person can legally put into their own bodies, is nothing more than an attempt to legislate one person or groups view of morality. We should only legislate BEHAVIOR, that is clearly observable and causes harm.

In closing, while it is "FAIR" that the people who take the money we give up in taxes should have to pass the same drug tests we must pass in order to maintain the employment that we use in order to have said money deducted from our paychecks, since I object to drug tests for employment anyway, I cannot in good conscience support yet another usurpation of civil liberties even if it makes the situation more equitable. Instead, I'd like to see companies abandon pre-employment drug screens via urinalysis, and switch to a system that only detects active drug/metabolite in the bloodstream, and stop making employment decisions/judgement's based on what free law abiding individuals do in the privacy of their own homes.

I've been a registered Libertarian for over a decade now. But I'm also pragmatic, and know that one can embrace the ideals, but must compromise in our society today. I think abolishing public schools would have a negative impact on our society, for example.

As far as the drug testing, some jobs you don't want some one to even recreationally be taking drugs. Long haul truck drivers for one. They are on the road way too many hours as it is, and if they are not mentally sharp, it could prove disastrous for an unsuspecting motorist. In fact, in California, DOT jobs is the only industry (as far as I know) where random testing is legal.

If all we were concerned about is the economy, then my party, the Libertarian party, makes sense. However, our society has proven again and again it cannot be trusted to do the right thing when no one is looking, and therefore, governmental regulations ARE required. A perfect example is the banking industry over the last decade resulting in this terrible recession we still find ourselves in today.

---Roman

[trikydik]

Yes!

[noon]

My estro may be high but this one actually make me so sad for the kids that have no choice and don't know another way of life. I'll keep brief
Friends of mine foster children when removed from homes and they are amazing with them. It's a struggle at first the kids see them as the bad guys for taking them from mom and dad. Then they realize how things should be set rules meals and a schedule they can adapt to. I was at there house a few years ago when one of the kids was crying in the back yard. I went to see what was wrong. He had got the news that he was going back to mom. (She had passed her parenting class state mandated) and he knew she would go back to drugs. We went on to tell me that she doesn't cook gets high for days ignores him her friends treat him like he was always in the way. So on and so on. I cried as much as he did. (Damn allergies)
No body wins with these people.
Sorry for going of course .
It's just a lose lose. And this is just one case. I asked my buddy how he does it. Ha says you have to love them and try not to get attached.

[Times Roman]

My estro may be high but this one actually make me so sad for the kids that have no choice and don't know another way of life. I'll keep brief
Friends of mine foster children when removed from homes and they are amazing with them. It's a struggle at first the kids see them as the bad guys for taking them from mom and dad. Then they realize how things should be set rules meals and a schedule they can adapt to. I was at there house a few years ago when one of the kids was crying in the back yard. I went to see what was wrong. He had got the news that he was going back to mom. (She had passed her parenting class state mandated) and he knew she would go back to drugs. We went on to tell me that she doesn't cook gets high for days ignores him her friends treat him like he was always in the way. So on and so on. I cried as much as he did. (Damn allergies)
No body wins with these people.
Sorry for going of course .
It's just a lose lose. And this is just one case. I asked my buddy how he does it. Ha says you have to love them and try not to get attached.

almost all kids are born basically good. which is why they are gold.

if it weren't for my age, my severed garden hose, and a variety of other reasons, I'd entertain the idea of having another.....

[Daniel h]

We will never have a third party because of money.Our political system is really in the shitter right now.

[Times Roman]

We will never have a third party because of money.Our political system is really in the shitter right now.

never say never

Ross Perot of the reform party had a huge impact on the presidential elections not too many years ago....
....Remember him?

[OdinsOtherSon]

What do you think?

should we require a drug test for public housing and food stamps?

what good will that do?

will it be a deterrent to using drugs?

None, because like every other law we have today it seems no one wants to enforce them...unless of course we're enforcing AAS usage or speeding laws.

[Times Roman]

^ or helmet laws