Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
RooseveltTruman Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:47 PM
Original message
Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients
I'm a Facebook junkie (hey, at least I admit it), and one thing I've noticed is the TREMENDOUS amount of people who support drug testing for welfare recipients. Nearly a dozen friends have indicated support for it in a poll (none have indicated opposition), and many more "like" groups such as "Make drug testing mandatory for welfare recipients!"

What's interesting about this, though, is that many (not an outright majority, but probably close to half) of the people in support of this are otherwise fairly liberal people (sometimes VERY liberal people). This (coupled with the numbers), suggests to me that this is something with a broad base of support (and recent polls indicate this too).

My question is: what is the liberal argument against drug testing for welfare recipients? When confronted with this, I find it hard to argue against it, because I *do* see the practicality of it, and I can understand why working Americans may feel frustrated that *they* have to take drug tests, while welfare recipients do not. Personally, my feeling is that all drug testing outside of sports (performance enhancing related shit) should just be banned, as I see it as an invasion of personal privacy. But seeing as that likely won't happen, what is our argument against drug testing for welfare?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. Would they then offer free treatment to those with drug addictions?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
80. Do I get free treatment?
As I am employed and have a deductible.

Can I please get FREE treatment, please??!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. I personally don't think we should test welfare recipients for drug use.
I agree with you and feel that it is an invasion of privacy. I am on Facebook quite a bit, and I am amazed at how many of my friends have answered "Yes" to this question.

I guess that many people feel that if the government is providing them with money, that they should not be spending it on drugs. I can understand that, but don't agree with the testing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:52 PM
Original message
The hatred for poor people is ramping up, and "progressives" don't have much of an interest
in combating it.

"Solidarity" in action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
56. No doubt.
Next thing we know, they'll want mandatory drug testing of everyone on Social Security Disability as well.

Where does it end?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oh, I'm strongly in favor - provided recipients of corporate welfare are also tested
That would mean everybody at ADM and GE and Cargill and Georgia-Pacific and Boeing and Lockheed-Martin . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. And when you need food stamps, you would submit your children to such treatment, also?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
32. ~~~~crickets~~~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. as well as all elected politicians.
after all, they are living on taxpayer money too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. LOL
That would cover a whole lot of people, now wouldn't it? My oh my.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Llewlladdwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. Government contractors are already subject to fairly strict drug testing. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
54. Nope. Government contractors need to agree to maintain a drug-free workplace
but not all contractors are required to do employee drug testing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. I just saw someone like that today
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 12:58 PM by KamaAina
:shrug:

Basically, the argument is that the frackin' government doesn't own your body just because it gives you a paltry sum so you can barely scrape by each month.

edit: Ack! Another one! And I thought she was a progressive! :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. We just fought this argument. Do we have to do it again already?
Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

There. Question answered. Now can we resist beating up on poor people yet AGAIN, or must we rehash this crap every week?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Yes, beating up on us poor folk will continue... and INCREASE. The Dems have ignored us for
long enough, so that the vilification has had time to settle in.

It will be unending, and we will lose.

"Solicarity" my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluethruandthru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
42. Right! And it's amazing how many of these "small government"
conservatives have no problem with instituting yet another government program! They don't want to spend the money to feed breakfast to poor children in school but, by god, money's no object when it comes to keeping your thumb on the poor!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. So then what, cut off or refuse money and food stamps?
Take the kids away and foster them out? Make them ineligible for WICK? Impound cars? Kick them out of subsidized housing? What?

Dumbasses.

I don't get the point of drug testing for welfare. At all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. Do all of that, then arrest them. Because law enforcement is soooo much cheaper than helping
people survive.

And being all authoritarian on someone's ass leaves the authoritarians feeling ever so powerful and superior.

Win/win all around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
50. Might as well bring back
Debtors prisons while we're at it. The whole idea is disgusting and insane and frightening. As an idea, it seems it should be more repuke supported than liberal, but when it comes to the poor-- the ones without power or even voices-- it's easy pickin's for political expediency.

Or that good ol' "Us vs Them" bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. You are absolutely right on all counts... It is Dickens all over again.
And will be coming to fruition if the middleclass DEMS don't start reaching out to poor people, and fighting for US, also.

"Solidarity". Bah Humbug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justabob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #34
64. right
Pay 30K/40K per head per year for incarceration(whatever the number is now), but 12K for food assistance, housing assistance et al that would keep people housed and fed and whatever else..... that is just too too much. Pay more to make those struggling suffer when they could pay less to help the same people, and with better results. It makes my head spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. You have the facts exactly right. Unfortuntely, this is NOT talked about on "progressive" media,
and as you can see, there are many "progressives" here who just don't get this basic fact.

I would strongly urge you to ask "progressive" pundants to talk about these very real issues!

Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
69. What don't you "get"?
Edited on Sat Apr-09-11 03:49 PM by blueamy66
If they can afford buy and to drive an SUV, at $4 a gallon of gas, they should be able to feed their children, don't ya think?

My parents worked hard.....just found out that my Dad had 2 jobs...never knew it....we never had fancy cars....just ones that got us from point A to point B

So, it's okay for your TAX DOLLARS to go to feed welfare families, who could most likely afford FOOD if they weren't FEEDING THEIR DRUG HABIT?

REALLY???????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. I was on welfare
No car. We took buses, lived in housing projects. I knew how to cook things like hamburger stew, and by the end of the month it was rice, chicken backs and Kool aid. Thanks to the assistance I recieved, I'm now a registered nurse with a very good income. I suggest you direct your bullshit elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. my bullshit?
What, cause I want welfare recipients to be drug tested?

Where else should I direct my bullshit? Do you want it in your front yard?

I have NO PROBLEM WITH WELFARE...just those that abuse the system! Get it???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. And the cost for all this 'testing' would be? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. basically that's the argument
what is the cost benefit vs the added expense. Does a person on welfare taking say pot (the easiest illegal drug to detect) have less potential to contribute to society than say a person not on welfare? Since one imagines it is the anger of welfare money being spent on illegal drugs that makes them mad, does the added management cost (which include testing, labeling, follow up programs, appeals) worth the small savings. How much welfare money actually goes into the illegal drug industry? How much is it versus the total money flowing into drugs? These questions aren't even presented as reasons for doing it.

Most progressives don't see how the cost of management could possible be worth it. Afterall it is not like positive tested people would be offered $$$ to add rehab. I see no societal benefit from knowing how many welfare people smoke pot. The only benefit would be to add to the label Americas poor are lazy and drug addicts. Which is of course the point of the drug testing program as proposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. I have no problem with drug testing for people receiving liqiudable forms or large sums of aid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. They are under the false impression that ever person on welfare
uses that money to buy drugs and Cadillacs and other expensive things. I know plenty of people who have that false view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I don't think folks think that "every"
person on welfare abuses the system. I do believe that the perception is that a significant number of people within the welfare system to abuse the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tony_FLADEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
12. I make the argument that millions of people are out of work and these
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 01:23 PM by Tony_FLADEM
people would otherwise be working if not for the economic downturn. It really makes no sense to drug test all these people just to find a few that might be using drugs. In other words, it's not a wise use of resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
david_vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. Guess I'm stupid, since I think this has an easy answer
Unless you want to argue that people on welfare no longer have Constitutional rights, then they are just as protected as you and I are (HA!) by the Fourth Amendment. Drug testing for no reason constitutes "unreasonable search".

On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment has been killed. It no longer exists, thanks to warrantless wiretapping and the dawning age of presumption of guilt until proven innocent. SOMEONE (I'm looking at you, Thom Hartmann) needs to write a book on the Fourth Amendment as having been killed off by the paranoia industry and, in this particular case, by the continuing campaign to steal from the poor -- stealing someone's Constitutional rights is theft, regardless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
14. It is the same mentality that wants to drag everybody else down to their crappy level
"Hey, you're a public school teacher and getting paid more than I am! I can't stand that so I'm going to agitate until you're only making minimum wage too!"

"Hey, I have to pee in a cup in order to retain my shitty job! I think everybody who is working or needing aid should have to pee in a cup too!"

We have become an envious, jealous society, where people get pissed if somebody, somewhere is perceived as somehow pulling one over on the rest of us, especially if it is being done with taxpayer money. Rather than lifting everybody up, they want to drag everybody down to their own crappy level.

Frankly I think that drug testing is an invasion of a person's privacy and shouldn't be allowed. Of course we all lost that argument decades ago, so now piss testing is simply going to become more and more pervasive. Piss test for a crappy job, piss test for a professional job, piss test to get government assistance of any kind (my bet is that the next step is piss testing college kids getting Pell grants), piss test in order to get a loan, piss test for a driver's license, etc. etc.

And yet nobody is standing up against this invasive procedure, in fact an entire generation thinks it is normal. Worse, like I said, these people think that everybody should be dragged down to their own shitty level, and thus must get piss tested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
16. I resent the hell out of the premise of drug testing welfare recipients. Just because someone needs

to use welfare services is not a reasonable cause to assume they are on drugs. Its a violation if the 4th amendment, which protects ones person (including their bodily fluids and DNA) from illegal search.

As far as "working Americans having to take drug tests," I've worked all my life and the only time I ever had to take a drug test was when I worked a crappy temp service job. And I'm currently a state employee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
77. You are exactly RIGHT, but that doesn't stop "progressives" from abusing poor people, does it?
THANK you for the link!! Very much appreciated!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. I would think the folks with this vapid idea would have to make a case of why we need to.
You said you see the practicality but the whole deal seems wildly impractical to me, making poor folks jump through another hoop for no real life reason as they are not at any special danger due to a public safety situation and there is a substantial risk of putting children at risk and families into hardship for no benefit. If "momma" takes a hit or two off a doobie and loses her benefits over it then you aren't punishing her but rather the children that gave her the need for assistance in the first place.

It is also a huge waste of resources that will either be robbed from these programs, reducing available benefits or you jack the poor person for it which effectively reduces benefits by a similar fraction.

This is pointless and don't anyone give the song and dance about protecting the kids because if you know anything then you'd know that most of the worst shit is out of the system in 1-3 days and all you are really doing is snooping someone's piss to see if they smoked some weed so it can be used as an excuse to shit on poor folks and especially their kids.

You jabber jawed for a few paragraphs and not once made a point of benefit while expressing you know it is an invasion of privacy but have this as an issue?

All the shit going down and a bunch of dumpsterjuice greedy fucks are trying to drug test folks for being poor and that seems reasonable?

No, I don't get the case at all and sure as water is wet, it is just a Reich Wing scam to beat up the weak and blame the folks at the bottom of the dungheap for fiscal issues created by fucked up trickle down and deregulation.

It is a fucking distraction! Think for a moment, what appreciable benefit to society is gained? What do you folks have stock in the testing industry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. As a member of a progressive community, DU, you should know this stuff. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
21. You mean, corporate welfare?
Because that's really the only kind that's left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
22. Congressional candidates need drug testing too.
As do all candidates for public office. They make decisions that affect each and every one of us..don't need drugs interfering with their minds while they do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
26. Are the kids going to be tested? If their mom's a pot head (oh my stars!)
should we kick them out on the street and take away their food stamps? I kinda think that's punishing the wrong party. The easiest course of action would be to legalize pot, but there are too many politicians making too much money from the illegal drug trade for that to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. It's intrusive.. it is an illegal search without probable cause.. it is an undue burden on the aid
recipient designed to prevent the recipient from receiving the intended aid.

You can't seriously believe anything you've posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. too damn expensive
I don't know what "our" argument against drug testing is, but mine is this:

It's too damn expensive.

I want my tax money to help people who need a safety net, not to pay for a complex regimen of drug testing. Who wants to pay for these tests? Who wants to pay for staff to administer and interpret them? Not me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. The most type of drug test (GCMS) costs $40 to administer. The ones the gov't uses (RIT) cost more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
30. When do we start DRUG TESTING Congress and law maker?
This country is heading down the wrong road!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
31. I'm actually surprised liberal people support this
Considering you're far more likely to catch THC users with drug testing than any other substance. And also THC is not as addictive and toxic like alcohol is. It isn't as toxic or addictive as cigarettes either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Nothing surprises me anymore, nothing! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Start with members of Congress...all administrative heads...
all Department heads and all advisors to the president. They are more prone to drug abuse than are those at the bottom of the heap.

Unfunded mandate--won't fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
36. such horseshit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
37. OK
1. The usual reasons for being against drug testing: Invasion of privacy. Milder drugs test positive more than harder drugs, because of the length of time the drug is in one's urine or spit. Etc.

2. Money. We have to cut heat for the poor, but we can afford to drug test them? What is the Government's primary goal for its citizens? Fuck them over?

3. Drugs should be legal. The most dangerous drugs are already legal, we are only punishing people who chose to take safer drugs. Crack may be an exception; I don't know a lot about crack.

4. Marijuana is a cheaper and more effective medication than some of the legal alternatives.

5. Wanting drugs to be legal, and wanting more people to be punished for using drugs, means your views are probably not founded in critical thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. About #3
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 04:08 PM by JonLP24
Crack is very much like cocaine because it is cocaine. What makes it different is the freebase part. Smoking gives it more immediate effects but lasts shorter while cocaine will give you longer high but not quite as strong immediate effects. It is pretty much the same as in euphoria, makes parts of your face numb, etc.

Meth is similar. Snorting it makes lesser immediate effects but the high lasts longer. Vaporizing it gives you an immediate rush but the high doesn't last as long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Thanks for the info! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
38. MMissing Person Alert: Original Poster. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
39. The outright hatred towards those who have chemical dependency is staggering
And make no mistake, it IS hatred

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Green_Lantern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
43. who will pay for the tests? are we willing to fund testing on top
Of welfare payments?

Why not drug test everyone who gets any state money...why only people on welfare?

This isn't going to save money since now we're funding drug tests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
44. This is total, unmitigated horseshit and anyone who supports
drug testing for welfare recipients betrays a woeful state of ignorance about who the principal beneficiaries of welfare in this country are: children. Yes, that's right, the vast majority of benefits from so-called welfare programs go to Aid for Families with Dependent Children (aka "AFDC").

So, when people argue for drug-testing welfare recipients, do they go one step further and propose taking away public aid from any families with children if the parent tests positive for drugs???? Really???? They will be hurting innocent children. Oh, right, children can't vote their sorry asses out.

This country makes me fucking sick sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
45. drug testing as a condition for tax deductions and tax rebates
Think that would be as popular with that crowd?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
46. I've been drug tested for every job I've gotten in the last 20 years (5 times)
I never objected to it and I don't have a problem with an employer requiring a drug test. I have no problem with welfare recipients being subject to the same scrutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. The government is NOT an employer. The Constitution does not protect you from private employers.
But it DOES protect you against government searches without probable cause--which is what a drug test for welfare is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #47
55. Probable cause applies to criminal investigation and the admissibility of evidence in a trial.
You do not have a right to welfare The government can attach whatever conditions it wants to your receiving it, provided they do not discriminate in doing so. My understanding is that ALL recipients would be tested, so discrimination is not an issue.

If you don't like the conditions, you're free not to apply for welfare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #55
62. Sorry, but not true.
Marchwinksi v. Howard already decided this. When Michigan passed a law like this, the 6th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals initially imposed an injunction against it. Then a panel of 3 judges on the court reversed the injunction, using the same argument you just attempted. But when the entire 12-judge bench heard the case, they reversed the panel and ruled that it IS, indeed, unconstitutional, and that the government cannot drug test welfare recipients without either (1) a compelling public safety reason, or (2) probable cause to suspect a crime.

Legal documents from all 3 stages of the case:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13040978699...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=88770266256...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12909108284...

The ACLU's amicus brief:

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/marchwinskiamicusbr...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinee Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #47
67. it doesn't guarantee you a welfare check either.
I have been piss tested so many times since I quit smoking weed and entered the real world, I couldn't even count them all. I would like to be able to smoke the occasional bowl of sticky green bud but I fucking can't. How is it fair that I have to endure the indignation of a urinalysis test and then pay taxes to support the lifestyle choices of others? It isn't. I'm all for piss testing these people and cutting them off if they come up positive. I am 100% for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. Then you're 100% wrong.
Edited on Sat Apr-09-11 03:59 PM by Lyric
It's unConstitutional, by ruling of the 6th Circuit Federal District Court. Government drug tests equal SEARCHES. Imposing them without probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment. Freeper types don't usually give a shit about that, but I'd think that a Democrat would.

It's incredibly cruel. It would punish CHILDREN. It would take away food, medicine, shelter, and warm clothes from CHILDREN whose parent(s) happens to test positive.

It's too fucking easy to make a MISTAKE and get a false positive, which would have the end effect of hurting the most VULNERABLE people in the COUNTRY. A poppyseed bagel. Cold medicines. Ibuprofen. Vitamin supplements. There's an enormous list of stuff that can cause a false positive on a drug test. If you get a false positive and get fired, you can always find another job. But if a poor person who has no other means of support but welfare gets a false positive, what the fuck are THEY supposed to do?! If they were able to work, they wouldn't be GETTING welfare. Jesus. This is not rocket science.

You ask, "How is it fair?" IT ISN'T. But that's not the fault of poor people. It's the fault of the fucking government that made drugs illegal in the first place. It's the fault of your fucking EMPLOYER for firing anyone who gets a positive drug test. It's the fault of SOCIETY for assuming that there's something horribly evil and wrong about smoking a joint now and then. But it's NOT the fault of the poor. So WHY, pray tell, do you want to rip the food out of the mouths of poor kids just because your life, my life, EVERYONE'S life, is UNFAIR?!

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LetTimmySmoke Donating Member (970 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
48. I'd like to know what drugs are going to be included,
and if it includes marijuana, will it also include alcohol? Get drunk and lose your benefits?

That said, I would like to see welfare changed into a kind of community service program where the needy are instead guaranteed a community service job, along with any necessary child care, in place of welfare. Hell, one of those jobs could be providing the child care that the others need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroglodyteScholar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
49. I'm all for drug testing welfare recipients...
...as long as we include the corporate welfare recipients and punish them just as severely as anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terra Alta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
51. It isn't fair to the poor family suffering -- or their kids.
If mom and dad smoke pot, for instance, and test positive for it they should receive no food stamps? That isn't fair, not to mention unconstitutional. But I think drug testing for most jobs should be banned. I would love to try pot, but if I did and my employer randomly drug tested me, I would be fired right on the spot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #51
58. Why isn't it fair?
Edited on Fri Apr-08-11 07:36 AM by blueamy66
The "parents" could have bought alot of food for the $40 that they spent on pot.

Hey, smoke away...have kids you can't afford....just don't do it on my dime.

Why is this so hard to understand? My fiance and I work our asses off to pay the bills and the child support....I work OT. He travels like a crazy man every week.....and we cut some expenses to afford better food and a bit of real fun. Why shouldn't welfare recipients? Oh, wait, I'll buy less food this week so that I can afford my fix.

WTF?

Do drugs til you are happy as a clam....but don't do it on the dole.

How hard is it to pee in a cup? I did it when I was hired.....I've done it when I got hurt at work.

Again, if you cannot afford to feed your kids, you CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY ANY DRUGS!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. what if it's doctor-recommended/prescribed medicine and they grew it themselves
in accordance with all state medical marijuana regulations?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. Um, well, that may be different
Edited on Fri Apr-08-11 07:45 AM by blueamy66
But share some with me, please!

I understand that, really, I do. But what percentage of welfare recipient parents are on doctor prescribed medical marijuana? And if they are, and it's legal, then they shouldn't be penalized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #58
68. Or on alcohol. Or on DVDs. Or on candy for the children...
"The "parents" could have bought alot of food for the $40 that they spent on pot..."

Or on alcohol. Or on DVDs. Or on candy for the children. Or on a Saturday matinee movie for the family. We should test them to make sure none of that is happening, because as we all know, how we treat the least among us...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
53. Ask them why just welfare recipients?
Why not anyone who gets government funding? Students with loans. People with grants. Politicians, people on Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment. Once we are done with the public sector we can move on to the private sector.... starting with Facebook users ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katnapped Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
57. I would assume...
There's SOME way for someone to make money off of drug testing which is why they're pushing so hard for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ehrnst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
59. This is push polling to create anger and suspicion of welfare recipients.
I'd agree to it if all who get a gov't paycheck also had to do regular drug testing - not that I'm in favor of that, it would just make it constistent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
63. 24 HOURS later and NO comment form the OP? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Shocking!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
70. I like drug testing for all federal employees making over 150k.
Then we can test governors and their staff next. They want a WAR!? Let us give them one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
71. Our argument is that we need a fair and balanced system to test for controlled
substances. I would be ALL FOR testing welfare recipients AS LONG as governors and their staff stand alongside and test too! If that were to happen, I would be all for it.

See. That argument can be tuned on its head in less than 5 seconds...which makes it weak and not worthy of real discussion imo. Not until the 'haves' agree to pissing in a cup too.

Until then it is all political bullshit and can't be spun any other way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
minavasht Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
75. What happened with that old saying
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life?

Is there a data about how many of the welfare recipients are getting out of the system and making it on their own?

I don't know anybody on welfare, but I've heard friends talking about families who have been on welfare for generations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Welfare
Edited on Sat Apr-09-11 10:01 PM by RobinA
is extremely difficult to get out of because it isn't enough to actually do anything with. Plus,the minute you start up the ladder the welfare gets cut off because you make too much and then you are back to having practically nothing while incurring expense because you are working. There are an incredible number of hoops to jump through to get welfare in the first place.

On a similar note, I once worked for a methadone clinic where you HAD to attend therapy during the day, so you couldn't really have a day job. So people would go out and work sporadically under the table as they were able. But we HAD to report their income, including under the table, at which point they would be cut off from the program because they didn't qualify due to their small income, or they'd have to pay for the program which they couldn't because they couldn't work regularly because they were coming to the program. It was insanity. The only people who could get any traction at all were those who had A LOT of family support or the people who were really good at the ins and outs of the system and knew how to play it very well. A lot of those people fought us (generic "us", I and some of the other counselors never saw anybody work under the table, no we did not!) tooth and nail to be able to work and still attend the program and we made it as difficult as possible for them to do so.

Bottom line, we give them a little bit of fish and then wonder why they don't just go read up on how to fish, drive to the sporting goods store at the mall, buy a set of fishing gear, drive to the nearest stream stocked with trout, spend the day catching dinner, and then bring it on home and cook it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Thank you for such an informative post! You have really captured the insanity, as you term it!
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to get exposure on "progressive" media, yet it is so clear how many "progressives" just don't get it.

Thanks! :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-11 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
79. ...along with means testing for rich SS recipients.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC