Drug testing welfare recipients saves money.

[Ursa Majoris]

because I think taxes should be lower? please do tell...

Nothing to do with that at all. Everything to do with what you and the rest of them target. For the record, I'm completely supportive of drug testing welfare recipients and I also think that the tests may well have had a significant deterrence effect. The point, however, is that saving a relatively few bucks that aren't handed out to dopers pales into insignificance when measured against the tax loopholes and largesse routinely paid out to large corporations that are currently making enormous amounts of money. The corporate jet break is just one example, probably the equivalent of tens of thousands of welfare recipients.

[Duchess Jack]

Again, if you can still go buy beer with the cash you aren't spending on food, what does it matter?

Sometimes a half measure is better than no measure at all.

[darin3]

Again, if you can still go buy beer with the cash you aren't spending on food, what does it matter?

Beer = legal

 

Drugs = not legal

 

I'm not saying those that use welfare money to buy beer are right in doing so, but there's an obvious difference between using money given to you by the gubment to purchase crack and meth versus buying a six pack of Bud Light along with your diapers, mac and cheese and Ramen.

[Azazello1313]

what darin said, but if you want to make it harder for folks to buy beer with their government assistance money as well, you can probably get me on board.

[Azazello1313]

Nothing to do with that at all. Everything to do with what you and the rest of them target. For the record, I'm completely supportive of drug testing welfare recipients and I also think that the tests may well have had a significant deterrence effect. The point, however, is that saving a relatively few bucks that aren't handed out to dopers pales into insignificance when measured against the tax loopholes and largesse routinely paid out to large corporations that are currently making enormous amounts of money. The corporate jet break is just one example, probably the equivalent of tens of thousands of welfare recipients.

 

first of all, I have consistently been against corporate subsidies, "targeted" tax breaks, almost all corporate bailouts (I do think something like TARP as originally conceived was necessary at the time, and probably helped avert great harm). that's the main thing.

 

but also, my main problem with government assistance payments of this kind aren't so much their costs, but the kinds of perverse incentives they create. and drug testing before folks receive benefits is a small step in the right direction in that regard that probably 90% of the people out there agree with. and somehow I don't see waterboy and emo_gop really winning any people to their side.

[bpwallace49]

I find it very hard to believe that anyone would ever support giving public aid to known drug addicts. But when you look further into it and find that it really isnt that big of a deal or as widespread as certain people think, then is the program on a cost basis worth it? On a common sense basis, no one wants "their" tax dollars going to anything that do not approve of. But after seeing how it only disqualifies 2%, then I cna think of thousands of things I would rather gubmnet be paying attention to than this. Not saying that this isnt a bad idea, but rather a question of priorities when it comes to examining the effectiveness of programs.

[Clubfoothead]

Beer = legal

 

Drugs = not legal

 

I'm not saying those that use welfare money to buy beer are right in doing so, but there's an obvious difference between using money given to you by the gubment to purchase crack and meth versus buying a six pack of Bud Light along with your diapers, mac and cheese and Ramen.

 

52% of houses that receive food stamps are houses with kids. I'm going to need clarification as to why the kids of methheads are more deserving of going to bed hungry than the kids of drunks.

[darin3]

52% of houses that receive food stamps are houses with kids. I'm going to need clarification as to why the kids of methheads are more deserving of going to bed hungry than the kids of drunks.

Beer = legal

 

Meth = not

[darin3]

Beer = legal

 

Meth = not

Oh, and it's kinda hard to just have a "couple hits of crack".

 

And I'll say it again, I am not saying those that are using welfare checks to go buy booze are in the right. But it's a whole hell of a lot different than using it to go buy illegal drugs that render you a complete waste of space.

Edited August 28, 2011 by darin3

[Clubfoothead]

Beer = legal

 

Meth = not

 

 

Oh, and it's kinda hard to just have a "couple hits of crack".

 

And I'll say it again, I am not saying those that are using welfare checks to go buy booze are in the right. But it's a whole hell of a lot different than using it to go buy illegal drugs that render you a complete waste of space.

 

If you are on food stamps but still buying beer with your cash, you probably don't stop at just a couple.

 

Az has me all pi$$ed off at the poor because they have toasters, microwaves and televisions no, so why would I not also be angry about the beer too? Toasters, microwaves and televisions are legal too and frankly I'd rather be subidizing someones kid's xbox than their whiskey.

 

From my perspective, if my tax dollars are paying for your buzz (which they should not be), I don't really care what your buzz of choice is. Telling the methheads to switch to vodka underwhelms me. I'm not excited about drafting Kenyon Coleman in the 26th round but at least I'm filling a roster requirement.

 

The only benefit drug testing people on food stamps has is that it makes people feel better about their tax dollars that go to support the program. In that regard, drug testing is a good thing. Other than getting people to feel good about their tax dollars going to a program they should already feel goood about their tax dollars going to, I just don't see the point.

[Clubfoothead]

If you are on food stamps but still buying beer with your cash, you probably don't stop at just a couple.

 

Az has me all pi$$ed off at the poor because they have toasters, microwaves and televisions no, so why would I not also be angry about the beer too? Toasters, microwaves and televisions are legal too and frankly I'd rather be subidizing someones kid's xbox than their whiskey.

 

From my perspective, if my tax dollars are paying for your buzz (which they should not be), I don't really care what your buzz of choice is. Telling the methheads to switch to vodka underwhelms me. I'm not excited about drafting Kenyon Coleman in the 26th round but at least I'm filling a roster requirement.

 

The only benefit drug testing people on food stamps has is that it makes people feel better about their tax dollars that go to support the program. In that regard, drug testing is a good thing. Other than getting people to feel good about their tax dollars going to a program they should already feel goood about their tax dollars going to, I just don't see the point.

 

Actually, I take that back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kenyon Coleman was a steal in the 26th round.

 

[darin3]

If you are on food stamps but still buying beer with your cash, you probably don't stop at just a couple.

 

Az has me all pi$$ed off at the poor because they have toasters, microwaves and televisions no, so why would I not also be angry about the beer too? Toasters, microwaves and televisions are legal too and frankly I'd rather be subidizing someones kid's xbox than their whiskey.

 

From my perspective, if my tax dollars are paying for your buzz (which they should not be), I don't really care what your buzz of choice is. Telling the methheads to switch to vodka underwhelms me. I'm not excited about drafting Kenyon Coleman in the 26th round but at least I'm filling a roster requirement.

 

The only benefit drug testing people on food stamps has is that it makes people feel better about their tax dollars that go to support the program. In that regard, drug testing is a good thing. Other than getting people to feel good about their tax dollars going to a program they should already feel goood about their tax dollars going to, I just don't see the point.

Fair enough. I guess I just draw a larger distinction between beer and illegal drugs.

 

Do I have a serious problem if I drink four beers during an online fantasy football draft? My guess is no.

 

Do I have a serious problem if I lock myself in the bathroom and inject toxic chemicals into my bloodstream? My guess is yes.

[Clubfoothead]

Fair enough. I guess I just draw a larger distinction between beer and illegal drugs.

 

Do I have a serious problem if I drink four beers during an online fantasy football draft? My guess is no.

 

Do I have a serious problem if I lock myself in the bathroom and inject toxic chemicals into my bloodstream? My guess is yes.

 

If my tax dollars are buying your food, I think both are equally serious problems. I see a distinction between the two when someone is feeding themselves.

[darin3]

If my tax dollars are buying your food, I think both are equally serious problems. I see a distinction between the two when someone is feeding themselves.

Folks who buy nothing but beer with gubment money = scumbags

 

Folks who buy a six pack of beer with gubment money along with their kids food, etc. = not exactly scumbags, but should reconsider their actions

 

Folks who buy nothing but meth or crack with gubment money = obviously scumbags

 

Folks who buy just a little bit of crack or meth along with their kids food, etc. = hanging out with unicorns, the tooth fairy and cheery BeeR posts (aka, all things that don't exist)

 

I'm certainly not calling those that go out and blow their gubment money on non-essential things as perfect angels. I'm just saying there's a larger chance that a meth-head is going to blow the ENTIRE kitty on their addiction as opposed to someone who's buying Natty Ice. Sure, I'm sure there are plenty of alcoholics that are abusing the system, and they should be lumped in with the crackheads. But to make a sweeping statement is, well, too much of a sweeping assumption. Just my

Edited August 28, 2011 by darin3

[Riffraff]

Just think of the poor pee pee watchers, testers, shippers, stockers, and managers. Why do you all want them on the other side of the umemployment line? Why do you hate Americans working American jobs?

 

Per shame! (shakes finger in disgust)

[evil_gop_liars]

Just think of the poor pee pee watchers, testers, shippers, stockers, and managers. Why do you all want them on the other side of the umemployment line? Why do you hate Americans working American jobs?

 

Per shame! (shakes finger in disgust)

 

I agree let's test the medicare people for drugs they are not prescribed or their prescription has run out...

[delusions of grandeur]

I agree let's test the medicare people for drugs they are not prescribed or their prescription has run out...

Ummm, there's no misappropriation of funds there, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Obviously the key difference here is that the money in that case is still going to the place it was intended to be used (doctors and medical care)... Yes I suppose there is some potential for fraud with medicare, but it's still appropriated to medical care facilities, whereas welfare is intended for people to feed their kids and help pay bills... It's pretty clear that a person unable to abstain from drugs long enough to even pass a drug test is not going to use the money in the way it was intended to be used... I don't really see how people can be against this...

 

I'm not up to date on current welfare laws, but I remember one of the few good things that Bush did was the welfare reform stipulation that you had to be seeking work, which included drug rehab treatment. It's not too much to ask that people who need assistance don't just use the cash to get high. It's intended to get people back on their feet and hopefully rise above welfare, rather than keep them off their feet smoking meth or crack.

 

Oh and to those calling it a contradiction that you can still buy booze with food stamps, I agree 100%, but I'm not entirely sure that you actually can buy booze with them, at least in this state anyway.

[westvirginia]

You can't buy booze w/food stamps, but you can buy it with welfare money, which is club's contention. And for my money, he's right. We shouldn't be subsidizing anyone's drug habits, no matter what their drug of choice..

[Azazello1313]

You can't buy booze w/food stamps, but you can buy it with welfare money, which is club's contention. And for my money, he's right. We shouldn't be subsidizing anyone's drug habits, no matter what their drug of choice..

 

hey, if you've got some way to do that I'm all ears. but I think club's point is more along the lines of "if we can't stop someone from buying bud light, we have no business trying to stop them from buying meth."

[westvirginia]

hey, if you've got some way to do that I'm all ears. but I think club's point is more along the lines of "if we can't stop someone from buying bud light, we have no business trying to stop them from buying meth."

 

Oh, I see the difference, but there is supposedly a test that tracks protiens leave in the bladder up to 8 days or something. I don't know if that's economically feasible, but

[McBoog]

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

 

I work for the G and my pay check is government money. Fail and I lose my job. Does that make me "the poor". I feel like it sometimes

 

I think everyone receiving G funds should be tested and denied if positive.

 

They also did not mention what they are testing for

[delusions of grandeur]

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

 

I work for the G and my pay check is government money. Fail and I lose my job. Does that make me "the poor". I feel like it sometimes

 

I think everyone receiving G funds should be tested and denied if positive.

 

They also did not mention what they are testing for

As someone who retained the Hope Scholarship, which the state of Georgia funds through it's lottery to pay for tuition and books, my requirement was to maintain a 3.0 grade average... That's the stipulation because I was going to school to better myself... It really didn't matter that I smoked Josh Gordon or drank on my own time and dime, because I was doing what was required of me to make sure the State's money was going to good use: allow me (and BTW, as I noticed a number of not well-off students that probably couldn't afford to before) to get an education without having to have a full-time job to afford it.

 

So why drug test me? I'm not asking for money to pay for my personal bills and feed my family, that I might be able to use on drugs. My $$ are going to my education, where I'm doing what's required of me (maintaining a good grade point average) to justify the state allowing me a scholarship... Just the same, they have this very small requirement to make sure the money is not being "wasted" (pun intended).

Edited August 30, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[westvirginia]

As someone who retained the Hope Scholarship, which the state of Georgia funds through it's lottery to pay for tuition and books, my requirement was to maintain a 3.0 grade average... That's the stipulation because I was going to school to better myself... It really didn't matter that I smoked Josh Gordon or drank on my own time and dime, because I was doing what was required of me to make sure the State's money was going to good use: allow me (and BTW, as I noticed a number of not well-off students that probably couldn't afford to before) to get an education without having to have a full-time job to afford it.

 

So why drug test me? I'm not asking for money to pay for my personal bills and feed my family, that I might be able to use on drugs. My $$ are going to my education, where I'm doing what's required of me (maintaining a good grade point average) to justify the state allowing me a scholarship... Just the same, they have this very small requirement to make sure the money is not being "wasted" (pun intended).

 

I think the principle of "if you take the king's salt, you play by the king's rules" applies here. If you're taking gov't money, you should abide by gov't laws.

 

Now, I'm the FIRST one to point out many (probably most) laws are stupidity chiseled out by some campaign contributor to gain an advantage of some kind. And I think drugs should be legal. But I can see the point of these folks saying if you take my (tax) money you need to abide by my rules (laws).

[bpwallace49]

..Is Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Unconstitutional?

By ADAM COHEN | Time.com – Mon, Aug 29, 2011....tweet272Share44EmailPrint......More From .

 

.....Under a new Florida law, people applying for welfare have to take a drug test at their own expense. If they pass, they are eligible for benefits and the state reimburses them for the test. If they fail, they are denied welfare for a year, until they take another test.

 

Mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants is becoming a popular idea across the U.S. Many states - including Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Louisiana - are considering adopting laws like Florida's. At the federal level, Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has introduced the Drug Free Families Act of 2011, which would require all 50 states to drug-test welfare applicants.

 

And the focus isn't even limited to welfare. In July, Indiana adopted drug tests for participants in a state job-training program. An Ohio state senator, Tim Grendell, recently said he plans to introduce a bill to require the unemployed to take a drug test before they receive unemployment benefits.

 

Drug-testing the needy has an undeniable populist appeal. It taps into deeply held beliefs about the deserving and undeserving poor. As Alabama state representative Kerry Rich put it, "I don't think the taxpayers should have to help fund somebody's drug habit."

 

But as government policy, drug testing is being oversold. These laws do not do what their supporters claim. And more importantly: they are likely to be unconstitutional.

 

Drug testing proponents like to argue that there are large numbers of drug users going on welfare to get money to support their habits. The claim feeds into long-standing stereotypes about the kind of people who go on welfare, but it does not appear to have much basis in fact.

 

Several studies, including a 1996 report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, have found that there is no significant difference in the rate of illegal-drug use by welfare applicants and other people. Another study found that 70% of illegal-drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time.

 

Drug-testing laws are often touted as a way of saving tax dollars, but the facts are once again not quite as presented. Idaho recently commissioned a study of the likely financial impact of drug testing its welfare applicants. The study found that the costs were likely to exceed any money saved.

 

Read why drug tests do not always work.

 

That happens to be Florida's experience so far. A Florida television station, WFTV, reported that of the first 40 applicants tested, only two came up positive, and one of those was appealing. The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits to the two applicants, but it had to pay $1,140 to the applicants who tested negative. The state will also have to spend considerably more to defend the policy in court.

 

Given that cost-benefit reality, it is hard to escape the suspicion that what is really behind the drive to drug-test benefits applicants is a desire to stigmatize the needy. The fact is, there are all sorts of people who benefit from government programs. Businessmen get state contracts, farmers receive crop subsidies and retired state workers receive pensions. The pro-drug-testing movement, however, is focusing exclusively on welfare recipients - an easy target.

 

Policies like Florida's will almost certainly end up in court - and there is a good chance that they will be struck down. The Fourth Amendment puts strict limits on what kind of searches the state can carry out, and drug tests are considered to be a search. In 1997, in Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test.

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish "personal privacy for a symbol's sake," the court said.

 

Drug testing welfare applicants does not seem to meet the Chandler test since there is no particular safety reason to be concerned about drug use by welfare recipients. In 2003, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Michigan's drug testing of welfare applicants as a Fourth Amendment violation.

 

If Florida and other states are really concerned about drug use, they should adopt stricter laws and better enforcement policies aimed at the whole population, not just the most vulnerable. But these laws are not really about drug use. They are about, in these difficult economic times, making things a little harder for the poor.

 

Cohen, a former TIME writer and former member of the New York Times editorial board, is a lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School. Case Study, his legal column for TIME.com, appears every Monday. You can continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

 

as it pertains to the subject at hand . . .

[Azazello1313]

Another study found that 70% of illegal-drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time.

 

with a slightly different spin, that comments becomes, "The unemployment rate among illegal-drug users is 30%".