The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I am unsure if this has been discussed in this forum before. Looks like several states, including Oklahoma, are taking steps to drug test those receiving "welfare" benefits.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090326/D975MFE80.html

I know its an often repeated argument, but I think it is still valid. Since employers are able to drug test its employees and prospective employes, those receiving benefits that are financed by these drug tested employees should at a minimum be tested.

I understand the arguments against it.  But it makes sense to me.  If you choose to receive benefits from the state you need to not waste your money on recreational drugs (or, IMHO, habitual alcohol or tobacco).  If someone paid my housing costs, food costs, and daycare costs any wages I earned become discretionary.  I think it is wise to ensure that government money is not going to purchase drugs and fund problems that will require more government money to battle. 

Not too mention, perhaps taking governmental aid and having to give up recreational drugs will enable some people to get off of government assistance.  I understand that drug use is perfectly sustainable by many people and not always addictive, but also that it destroys other people AND too often serves as a financial drain.  Limiting drug use in areas of poverty could help a lot.  (I also understand that government aid recipients are not all drug users)

Essentially, you choose to receive government aid OR you choose to use drugs.  If the drugs are more important, so be it.  But that probably means drugs are more important than your children or the rights of other people too.

I would hope such measures would come with treatment programs for addicts (would almost have to, IMO).  It could really prove to be a win win situation.   Limiting governmental money to fund drug use while at the same time encouraging people to be higher functioning members of society.  Which could save money for the government and make money for recovering addicts.

Implementation would be interesting.  But I'll leave that for a time when it looks like the plan might actually work.  Also, I still harbor those privacy concerns . . .

[quote ]Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.[/quote]

I understand the logic of going after Welfare and Food Stamp recipients, but isnt unemployment insurance money that belongs to the recipient and not the state?

I am fine with Welfare and Food Stamps but I don't want unemployment.  Unemployment runs out (is my reasoning).  Unfortunately I bet you will find that finding people trading their food stamps/welfare for cigarettes and alcohol is going to be "unpossible".

Anybody getting assistance on a regular non ending basis should be tested.  If I were on such assistance I wouldn't have a problem with submitting to a drug test.  If you are going to get paid for not working you might as well have to pee in a cup.

FWIW, the unemployment is basically a state run insurance system.  Companies pay into the system. Their rate goes up and down (from a .6% of wages to 5.4%, if memory serves me) based on how frequent claims are successfully filed against them. 

If you were recently unemployed and lost your job due to circumstances warranting unemployment (you don't get unemployment if you get fired), then I don't think drug testing would be needed.  The bennefits will run out, so you better get moving.  If drugs hinder that effort then you will fall into the "tested" category in the not too distant future.

In the article, it said, "'Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs,' said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature."

The truth is that a large portion of people on assistance have been forced there. Whether through job loss or disability, people find themselves in need of assistance. And though there are some who abuse the system, it's the ones who are in legitimate need that would be suffering the humiliation of urinalysis if the inhumane kinds of laws discussed in this article were to pass.

If you or someone close to you hasn't been through the welfare system, then you do not have the perspective of what a pride-crushing process it is. Why would anyone want to add peeing in a cup to it? These are our fellow human beings we're talking about.

I'm with you, urinalysis is humiliating, and archaic. 

The good news is that they have a new saliva strip for this.  It's just the size of Popsicle stick.  The subject just puts it in his/her mouth for a second and bingo positive/negative for 10+ substances.  It's as accurate as the urine test, costs less and is instant.  It is also more difficult to fool and avoids the humiliation associated with urinalysis.  Brings down the cost of the test from $10-$20 to about $3 each. 

Problem solved.

That scares the heck out of me. I can see them being on the sideline of the small town football game, at the library book check-out desk, or even the public park entrance because some elected official wanted to pass some anti-drug election year bill.

I bet it's already happening.  They have started marketing them to parents, and they should be in your local Walgreens soon if they are not already.  There is also a spray out that you can spray on a person or in a vehicle that turns some bright color in the presence of Marijuana residue.  I can really see that used in schools, police situations and job interviews.  It's activated by small amounts of residue, so someone could spray your desk, keyboard, or mouse when you're not there and tell if you were using.

I'd like to test it on FOTD's car, wearing a welder's mask of course. 8)



 

I would not mind them drug testing Welfare Recipients.  However if they do they should also require an assistance program to help get them off the drugs.   Attend rehab or lose you assistance.  It should not be purely punitive without offering some sort of avenue to clean up.     

Actually, if you are fired you CAN get unemployment.  I sure did.

File for it, even if you do get fired.  Because if the former employer doesn't call in for the joint interview (which mine did not), you automatically get it.

Of course, I was fired for a reason that most attorneys told me I could have sued for.  The company didn't last much longer so it would have been like milking blood from a turnip.

I don't think the many people I see at various grocery and convienence stores that have 4-6 kids and are talking on a cell phone have had their pride crushed.  I don't see how anyone could think that taking a drug test by urinalysis would be considered inhumane.  Are you serious?? 

Every job I have ever had since I was 16 (dating back to 1998) I have had to take a drug test  for.  Hell, even for interning with TPD, we had to take a drug test.  I never once felt it was obtrusive, offensive or inhumane. 

I agree with CF, leave out people on unemployment, but anyone on any other type of assistance should be elgibile.  If anything, it would save money in the long run in terms of weeding out individuals who abuse the system and are chronic drug offenders.  The testing and implementation of such system surely would not equal that of the savings every month.

I don't care if you are forced or not.  No reason to have tax payers pay for things that could eventually be bartered for drugs.  I guarantee you that it would be more "pride-crushing" to use food stamps in a store than it would be to get a drug test around a bunch of other people that are in the same situation.

You know guys, I don't think the fat cats on Wall Street are going to like being tested.  After all they can afford the good stuff.

+1 Karma.   ;)

(http://static.lulu.com/items/volume_62/1051000/1051454/1/preview/zoom_1051454.jpg)

I've had to pee in a cup before. As far as the most humiliating things I've done in my life, it doesn't make the top 100.

Okay, what everyone is not getting is the fact that most people on assistance did not "choose" to be there. They had no choice. It was a matter of survival. Think of the elderly! Getting into the system is not easy. It's means-tested, and the tested part kills whatever pride one might have had. Adding a drug test to the situation would make the process even more painfully humiliating. Unfortunately, we know that a portion of people on assistance are on drugs. What's worse, we know some of them are working the system. But the entirety of people on assistance should not be tarred with the same brush. Why make a humiliating experience more humiliating? What's the real purpose? So people can be smugly satisfied their tax dollars aren't going to help dysfunctional people who also have drug problems get groceries each month? Or is it so people on assistance can be put in rehab? So DHS can come into their homes and put their children in foster care? Can we afford these things? If we go down this path, we need to make up our minds: Are we doing it to "get" the druggies, or do we have a more noble goal in mind? OR do we want to kick them off and leave them with no alternative help?

I agree with you Elain on the need to to commit to the path.  But not to "get" anybody, but to improve the situation.  If you choose to be on drugs over welfare/food stamps/housing, then you deserve to loose your children.  Clearly they are not a priority.   But if we decide to go that route we need to offer assistance in enabling them to get on the straight and narrow.

You view it as enabling drug addicts to get food so I can be smug.  I view it as enabling people who would otherwise spend money on food to buy drugs.  I imagine it is far more common for government money to be spent on recreational drugs than hard core addictions.  This step could nearly eliminate the form (recreational) and case the latter (addicts) to enter into treatment.

The choice you lay out is enable and allow people to knowingly abuse the system or add the "humiliation" of a possible drug screening to the system.  A humiliation that every truck driver, machine operator, airline pilot, and many police forces as well as many pharmacists and a slew of other jobs do voluntarily in exchange for their jobs.  We ask them to face this humiliation, I doubt it is too much for others to face up to.

We all know there are people who are chronically on government assistance for one reason or another.  Often it is systemic abuse or gaming of the system.  We also know that those programs are there to help people get back on their feet and many of the recipients are temporarily on aid and will be off as soon as they can.  The former I have no concern for, the latter would likely accept the fact that they have to give up recreational drugs as a step to getting back on their feet.

The third subset, in either category, are people who are addicted to drugs - which is a contributing factor in their need for governmental aid.  To this group the prospect of a rehabilitation program would be their salvation.  Or we could enable them to continue doing drugs and not encourage them in any way to stop.

I am not biased against "druggies."  I couldn't care less what you do so long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.  Unfortunately, when you are taking my property to support your drug habit, it is infringing on my rights and I believe I have an interest in preventing that from happening.  Like I said, I don't want to see welfare money going to other luxury items like tobacco or alcohol either.  If you need help, you don't need recreational drugs.

Thanks for fighting the good fight Elaineper.  I’m with you.

These guys have a strong feeling that someone has stolen their lunch but they are not quite sure who so they are flailing around trying to find someone to blame.   They are piling up on defenseless welfare moms because that's as far as their grasp or their imaginations reach.

What a crock. The unemployment system forces these poor people to go to job interviews too, and that can be very stressful.   :'(

Give me a break.  We provide, through the system, interview skills training, resume assistance, and even tell them how to dress for a job interview.  We care about these people.  We have an investment in them.  We are investing in their future success.  If we are just supporting a drug habit, we are part of the problem.

If a person spends his/her first welfare/unemployment check on a QP of some premo Oklahoma Skunk Weed, and blows a job interview because of it, how is that helping them.  If however they flunk a drug test at the unemployment office and are given the chance to clean up, so they can perform well in an interview, and be able to pass a drug test at the corporate level, then we have done good.

I have a friend who has been unemployed for several months now.  He has been offered 3 jobs and couldn't pass the drug test for any of them.  He can get an unemployment check though, and he knows that.  He is by no means an addict, he simply has little or no motivation to change.  He will milk his unemployment for as long as he possibly can, and perhaps by that time he will have a real drug problem.  Financed by US.

I'm not rallying against welfare moms, or against drugs.  What I am against, is buying something that doesn't work.  If we are going to make an investment in a person's welfare, that person has an ethical obligation to respect that investment by taking the steps necessary to be successful in the acquisition and retention of work.  As investors we also have a responsibility to the health of our investment.  It is our duty to care for them.  If they have a methamphetamine addiction, or alcohol dependency they are in a crisis far more serious than just being out of work.  This presents an opportunity to help a lot of people to a better life.

Why would you attempt to spin that into something negative.  Throwing money at people with your eyes closed because you feel sorry for them only helps YOUR conscious.  It does little to help those in need. 

+1, I think that was very well said. 

Aren't we missing the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty"?  In any other circumstance, our government needs a search warrant to look through our property, our papers, or our bodies.  Yet here we're talking about giving consent for a similar search in order to get a job, keep a job, or receive some government benefits.  By that same logic, we should insist that anyone receiving social security submit to a drug test.  We also derive some benefit from having a driver's license, and it could be argued that there's a public safety interest in seeing that people operating motor vehicles do so without having their judgment distorted by drugs or alcohol.  Should everyone with a driver's license be tested?  

We're giving up our rights and liberties one by one, acquiescing as some relatively small sector of the population has to give urine samples in what appears to be reasonable circumstances.  The same authoritarians who insist that this is a public good when it comes to welfare recipients would scream loud and long if someone wanted to search their person and property without a warrant - as they should.  Yet to deny these same constitutional protections to others reveals their utter hypocrisy.

Here, here, Ed W.

That's well said and I can see your point, however there is a choice issue here.  We agree to an employer's drug test because we want the job.  It is not forced upon us.  We can choose to decline the test and by doing so decline the job.  That is an exercise of our individual rights.  The drug test is a condition of the job, much like a dress code, or arrival at work at 8 am, or not screaming profanity at your coworkers.  You could argue that imposing any of these rules is an infringement on our rights.

Likewise, a drug test during an unemployment application is a condition of the application.  We can choose not to submit to the drug test, and decline a draw on unemployment or welfare.  That too is an exercise of our individual rights.   The test is a condition of the investment or payout.

There is no intrusion or forfeiture of our rights unless we agree to it. 

To imply that an employer is violating our rights by asking for a drug test, you would have to conclude we somehow we have a right to a job.  We do not.  We only have choices.  We have a right to the pursuit of happiness.  Our choice is in how we pursue that happiness.

Ed,

The difference is that I have a RIGHT to be free of search and seizure without just cause.  I am entitled to that RIGHT by the constitution of the United States of America.  It is one of the most fundamental rights.

There is no right and no entitlement to governmental handouts.  It is a privilege to be sustained by the wealth of other people.  The government is depriving other citizens of their property rights in order to provide that privilege.  

I am not opposed to welfare or other governmental programs to provide a safety net, to get people back on their feet, or to provide services more efficiently or equitably than the private sector.    I am not an advocate for a police state and rally against check point, many of the rape shield laws, and other venues which find U.S. Citizens guilty by default.  I am well aware of the fine line that is tread with my position on this issue, it is not out of zeal, a sense of revenge, or to lash out at "welfare moms" (fwiw, when I was in college my friends that actually were welfare moms lived way better than I did, smoked plenty of pot, and used their neighbors in government housing as a collective babysitter so half the population could go to the bars each night.  Not saying that is the norm, but an example of issues we should seek to discourage).  My concern is that the system could do BETTER in both providing aid in a just and equitable fashion and to encourage a minority segment of recipients to work to get out of the system.

So when the government is taking others people property to give to me, they can put string attached to it.  If they provide me with health care it would be reasonable to mandate preventative health procedures.   If they paid for my housing they should be allowed to tell me how I have to maintain it.  If they buy me food it is reasonable for them to insist I not sell it for profit and dictate what items I might buy.

It seems reasonable that they should insist cash or other payments not enable a person to consume recreational drugs.  In exchange for the privilege of payments from the government, I give up my right not to be searched.  "Safety" checkpoints are allowed to check for DUIs because up to 5% of the population might be intoxicated while driving after 10pm, and 15% of the population regularly uses illegal drugs . . . so my guess is it would past muster.


/again, I give full credit to your argument about being free of searches and will readily destroy my own DUI analogy as junk.  But I still stand by the fact that my property rights are exchanged for your entitlements, I want something back.  Like a notion that they are really going to help people instead of funding recreational drug use.

I could raise distinguishing points differentiating road check points and drug testing for recipients of government aid, but I can do so going both ways if I'm honest.  So kudos on raising a good argument.  If anything would turn me against this idea, it would be a libertarian argument such as yours.

I won't belabor the same points because it adds nothing to the argument.  But I will say that I'm glad I'm NOT a judge who has to find the balance between public and private interests when it comes to these issues.  Naturally, I came down on the side of personal and private interests, but I can see the arguments for the other side too.  It takes away the blind certainty that leads to heated, bitter arguments. 

There's a personal element at work here, too.  In order to keep my job, I have to submit to random and for-cause drug tests.  In a recent one, the nurse administering the procedure was called away for an emergency at mid-test.  As a result, some paperwork wasn't completed properly and I had to be re-tested in about 2 weeks.  Would you want your family's livelihood to be at risk over a clerical error?  I surely did not.

Also, one of the executive types told us in a meeting that the tests are very reliable because they're computerized.  This provoked a round of laughter because we all work with digital equipment, including various computer systems, and we all know that they're susceptible to error mostly due to the human element.  A good example would be the Floyd Landis case where a French lab used the wrong software and didn't perform the required calibrations on its urinalysis equipment.  Worse, they violated their own protocols, yet Landis was still found guilty.  It's an example of government and industry acting as a steam roller over individual rights.  And if Landis was found guilty despite his very expensive legal defense, is there any chance that a nobody like me or you could prevail?

Sorry for wandering off topic a bit.  It's been a long, stressful week.

I can understand your argument when you're talking about TANF, but when you're talking about food stamps or unemployment, I don't think it holds.

Unemployment because it's not (generally, except in hard times like these where lots are on unemployment) paid by your tax dollars, but by the employers themselves, and food stamps because you can't buy drugs with an EBT card.

I still think it's a violation of a person's rights, but I can at least understand the state interest in testing TANF recipients. They are getting an essentially unlimited cash benefit with no time limit (aside from their children growing up) and there are children involved, by definition.

Honestly, while I don't think that any of the posters here are particularly guilty of this, the lawmakers who raise these ideas are doing it purely out of puritanically religious sentiment.

I shouldn't have to take a drug test to withdraw money from my savings or checking account.  I view Unemployment benefits and Social Security in a similar manner since significant amounts of non-government funds were involved.

I don't have a problem with an employer requiring a drug test as a condition of employment.  I didn't find it humiliating at all. I was not required to pee in the cup in front of witnesses.  There were precautions to prevent cheating. So what!  I don't have to work for them if I don't want to.  My choice.

I have often joked that I would like a good paying job where I didn't have to show up or do anything.  Welfare almost fits that category.  The pay isn't good enough for my lifestyle.  Consider the drug test as a condition of "employment" in the Welfare system.

There are other things to check for.  Maybe a diabetes screening would be less humiliating.  It's part of my pilot's medical exam.  Yep, pee in a cup.  If something else shows up, then corrective action (provide rehab, whatever) should be available.

I wonder how many of the people who are against drug testing welfare recipients are the same people who are against companies using bailout money to give bonuses to executives and how many of the ones who are for the bailout money being used to pay bonuses are for the drug testing of welfare recipients?

I like the idea of drug testing welfare recipients.If they are mooching off tax payer money then they really don't have the money to enjoying recreation drugs. IF you want to engage in recreational drugs then get a job and get off public assistance. Because if you got time to get high and money to spend on drugs then you obviously are in no need of tax payer money. I look look at the bailouts the same way. You can not use foodstamps to purchase beer and other alcoholic beverages,why can't we stipulate that companies receiving bail out money must not use them bonuses,luxury/private jets and other things that do not help the company get back on their feet.Grant it the executive bonuses are nickles and dimes compared to the bailout the companies are receiving and the foreign aid we give away and I think this whole AIG scandal was made up by those in office to redirect the anger of the tax payers at the politicians at another target.

When I was in the army they drug tested me a lot and when I was stationed at Fort hood everybody was drug tested once a month. Employers have a right to demand that their employees not be drug addicts and that they be of sound body and mind while on the job.

 

Not the same thing, everybody pays into social security.The payments you receive when you are older usually depend on how much money you put into the system.Social security is basically a forced retirement plan with every generation paying for the previous generation.



Should we not require anyone to get car insurance seeing how its unfair to make people purchase something they may not ever use,requiring insurance also assumes that everyone is a bad driver?  Should we not require driver's license test sfor anyone wanting a driver's license seeing how it might be unfair and humiliating to question their driving ability when we do not even know them? How about we not require any documents for someone getting a ID seeing how it unfairly questions their integrity to be truthful?


It is not a constitutional right to receive living expenses with no strings attached from tax payers.

Good retort JR.