Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

[guido911]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

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 . . .

[patric]

[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?

[Cats Cats Cats]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[Elaine]

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.

[Gaspar]

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.

[RecycleMichael]

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. 

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.

[Gaspar]

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.

[GG]

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.     

[Hoss]

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.

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.

[TUalum0982]

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 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.

[Cats Cats Cats]

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 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.

[Hometown]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.