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
134. 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
83. 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
40. ~~~~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
26. 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 #26
81. 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
52. 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
42. 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 #42
73. 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 #73
76. 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 #42
99. 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 #99
101. 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
112. 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 #112
119. 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 #119
120. 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
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #120
128. This kind of bullshit is ABUSE of those who are in need of assistance.
Maybe when some children in your family have to undergo this kind of humiliation you will 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
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. Then that perception is wrong.
It's incredibly difficult to abuse the system anymore. People who have honest, legitimate NEED are turned away at this point because it's so damned hard to qualify for. Unless you have a "friend" inside the system to grease the wheels and lie for you, I don't see how anyone can game the system anymore. I've been impoverished for most of my life and I've known literally hundreds of people who were receiving welfare--and I've NEVER met someone who was cheating. Not ever. I've met lots of people who had their benefits taken away unfairly because the system is so harsh and unforgiving, though.

For example--my sister's domestic partner had her and her little girl's Food Stamps cut in half for a year because she was required to register at the Job Service and they screwed up her registration in the computer, so it looked like she hadn't gotten there in time. Job Service called the welfare office on her behalf to tell them that it was a mistake on THEIR part, but they haven't fixed anything yet and it's been two months already. Poor people are not a priority, it seems. Until then, we're feeding her and her kid with part of OUR Food Stamps because that little girl and her Mom don't deserve to go hungry just because someone screwed up some freaking paperwork.

The whole system is like that. It's HARD to get help, and EASY to get it taken away for stupid mistakes like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #29
53. Horrible story, yet common, and there is NO legal remedy. :(
Yet the teabaggers pimping this stuff don't ever look at the facts as you present them, let alone admit that they may ever be wrong. :(

Thank you for telling this story! People don't want to look at the fact that it also affects kids. I guess if it affected animals there would be a huge outcry. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
61. That's America in a nutshell these days. Punishing children for the
sins of their parents (in this case, it was a system error that still two months later has not been corrected).

This country fucking makes me sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. That's what makes me so angry about it.
Lucy (my sister's partner) didn't do anything WRONG. It was a stupid, bureaucratic clerical error. But she and her little girl are the ones paying the price.

THIS is why, more than anything, I oppose drug testing welfare recipients. It's too damned easy to make a mistake or screw things up, and peoples' LIVES are at stake. Welfare is the cushion between eating and NOT eating...between having warmth and shelter and NOT having it. I am sickened that anyone would consider hurting innocent children just to punish their parents for the horrible crime of failing a drug test...especially since it's so very EASY to get a false positive.

If you fail a drug test for a job, you can always apply for another job. If you fail one for welfare...there's no other alternative, and god help you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #61
71. Yes, its sickening, but what are we doing about it? They are getting away with it because we allow
it.

And just like the bullies they are, the more they get away with, the more injury they perpetrate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. If Katrina taught me anything, it is that all the bullshit about 'united we stand'
is just bullshit. In this apotheosis of Reagan-Bushism, we are all on our own and cannot expect our government to promote our 'general welfare' any longer.

I am working for a (democratic) socialist revolution in this country, one that will organize our economy around meeting people's needs rather than satisfying an obscene profit motive and gratifying antiquated Puritanical and Calvinistic prejudices.

Not really sure what I'm doing on DU any more, except there are a few other Dem Socialists here whose ideas and advice I take very seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. When it comees to poverty, I don't see Socialists being any different.
All Bernie Sanders can say is "Middleclass", just like the rest of the Dems

Those of us lower than middleclass can just hop off a cliff, I guess.

I have asked Socialists over and over and over to remember that not everyone can be a "worker", but I am either ignored, or treated like a child who has to be told that "everyone is working". What they refuse to get is that by using those terms, they are causing those of us who are no longer able to work to be left out.

For one example... it is popular now to build low-income housing... FOR WORKERS ONLY.

Those who are too old, too sick or too injured to work are not welcome.

But socialists refuse to change their wording.

"Solidarity" = bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. Not sure which socialists you have been speaking to and I
certainly cannot speak for them.

But there is an old Socialist mantra: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The idea is that society's economic output should be organized around and distributed to meet people's needs, no matter what those people are capable of producing, even if it is nothing at all. If people are capable of working, then they should contribute to the economic output of the society.

Thus, for example, in a Democratic Socialist economy and society, you could expect to enjoy cradle-to-grave medical care free of charge. Novel concept that, eh? You get sick, you go to the doctor, you get treated (and, one hopes, cured). If a parent, you could expect to be paid to raise children or to work, or some combination thereof. Because raising children is just as important to society as producing widgets at the widget factory.

I hope you won't write off Socialism or socialists. Take a look at what happened to the poor in Cuba after the revolution there and you'll see at least a pre-figuring of what could be. (Literacy rates soared and infant mortality rates plummeted, just to name a couple pertinent data points.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #80
103. I've spoken about it here many times, and it goes nowhere. I'm glad you understand
what I am saying.

There are so many of us left out of the equations because people only seem to think in terms of what affects *them*, and what *their* lives are like.

Just because most are workers, doesn't mean that ALL are workers, and going on that assumption, as is now the common language from Madison and on all "progressive" media, makes us even a more vulnerable target, and we don't have people protecting us. Or not enough people.

Because of that, there are DUers here who see what is happening to us, and have given up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #61
87. So, what is the answer?
Let kids be raised by parents who are fuck ups that get government assistance? Think that's a great ife for kids? Guess what their future will be.....

Put them in an orphange? Foster care?

What is fucked up in our county is that everyone thinks that they have the RIGHT TO PROCREATE and then NOT PARENT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #87
109. EXCUSE me?!
Why do you assume that everyone who gets government assistance is a "fuck up"?!

Bigot much?
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
 
Llewlladdwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. It's not drug testing for no reason.
It's testing of individuals as part of eligibility requirements for participation in a Government program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Ohhhh! Well that makes it okay then!
There are lots of government programs. How many of them do you think the government should be allowed to require your DNA for? That's a similar invasion of privacy and violation of the 4th Amendment.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Llewlladdwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. I'm not aware of any Government programs that require a DNA sample. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. I'm not aware of any welfare programs that require a drug test.
The discussion is about whether or not they SHOULD. So SHOULD the government be allowed to require our DNA as an "eligibility requirement" for a government program?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #37
55. Shelters have done this for a long time. And while not a "government program" per se,
many of them do receive federal funding.

So, yes, it is here, and is expanding.

Welcome to the Criminalization Of Poverty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #55
64. I agree that shelters are wrong to do that.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 09:26 PM by Lyric
But they, at least, have the flimsy legal excuse of trying to maintain "public safety". It's not a LEGITIMATE excuse, but it's one that society ignorantly accepts. Drug testing for welfare doesn't even have THAT much quicksand to stand on, from a legal perspective. There is absolutely NO legal justification--not even BAD legal justification--to force drug tests on welfare recipients.

And I agree--we are indeed seeing the dawning of an era in which poverty will be more and more criminalized. It's tragic and it's entirely possible to stop, if only we had the support of those who actually have political power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. Not only is it not legitimat, it isn't Constitutional!
"It's tragic and it's entirely possible to stop, if only we had the support of those who actually have political power."

You are looking in the wrong direction. It is up to ALL of us to stop this! We work on other issues, but on this one we shake our heads and walk the other way.

Not too long ago, a town in western Colorado had problems with the police harrassing homeless people. Finally, they actually went to the encampment where a number of homeless people were living in tents, and pepper sprayed their clothes and belongings, so they were rendered unuseable, and slashed some of the tents.

A local group of young people went to the encampment, took pictures of the damage and interviewed the tent city residents and gathered the evidence, and successfully fought this. They ended up getting two cops fired immediately, and another one was fired later, and two were put on leave and resigned!

These were young people with no resources, no legal training, no nothing except a strong sense of justice and that they were supposed to "do something". And "do something" they did!

The homeless people in that town now know they have friends there, and know they don't have to keep eating injustice, and the cops know they are being watched, and are responsible for their behavior.

Everyone of us can do this!

WE just have to admit to ourselves that we CAN, and that we MUST.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. That's what I meant.
I mean that poor people are pretty much powerless because money = power. If only we had the support of the middle class, who actually DO have some power, we might be able to make a difference. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Did you see where I said that everyone of us can do this??? Those young people all
worked in restaurants, as waiters. They are poor themselves, but they knew that they had to act.

So what are we waiting for?????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Green_Lantern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #37
57. I oppose the testing but it'd be a urine test...not DNA collection...
A lot of employers already do this. Even unions require yearly urine drug testing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. It was an analogy.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 09:17 PM by Lyric
DNA, urine, blood, hair, whatever--it's still a part or product of your body. The person I was responding to seemed to think that the government requiring a "search" of your body for drugs as part of their "eligibility requirements" for a government program would be okay. I was simply pointing out that the standard that keeps the government from demanding DNA for one government program is the same standard that keeps them from demanding urine for another--at least not without a public safety reason or probable cause to suspect a crime.

Poverty and the need for welfare are neither a public safety issue nor probable cause to suspect a crime. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that drug testing for welfare is a violation of the 4th Amendment rights of welfare recipients. At this point, the argument is entirely theoretical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #62
78. Do you have a link for that Appeals decision? I don't suppose it applies to shelters, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #78
92. I don't think so, Bobbie, but here's the decision:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
50. I hope your family enjoys it when it happens to them... especially the children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #50
85. What children?
Edited on Fri Apr-08-11 07:22 AM by blueamy66
Not everyone has them. Jeebus Christ....what's with everyone and their children?

What's the problem with drug testing welfare recipients? If they can afford drugs, why can't they afford food? Make a fucking choice people.

Seriously.....I'm as liberal as it gets, but if one can afford booze/drugs, then they can afford a box of mac and cheese.

If it's such a problem, get them into treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #85
94. Children. Receive. Welfare. Really, it was a simple question.
So, here it is, in simpler form.

CHILDREN receive the largest amount of welfare dollars. Are you going to test them for drugs, alcolhol?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. NO. JUST. THEIR.PARENTS.
If their "parents" are doing drugs, yank them from their "parents" and put them in a stable home.

How fucking hard is that to understand???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. You are already assuming they are GUILTY, and do NOT understand the population on welfare.
Edited on Fri Apr-08-11 12:05 PM by bobbolink
Getting angry at me won't help your comprehension.

Do some reading. Besides at RW sites, that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #100
105. Oh please.
What is so hard to understand? I dont' assume "they" are guilty, but if they're doing drugs instead of feeding the kids that they cannot afford, why should MY tax $ got to their support?

I'm not angry at you....trust me....I have more important people in my life to be angry at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. Your wording says it. Nevermind...... obviously your mind is made up, and what it does to people
is of no consequence to you.

So, I go back to my original statement...when this happens to your family, you may feel differently about it.

"why should MY tax $ got to their support?"

Straight from the RW Play Book.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #107
110. What don't you understand?
I'm not gonna pay for some drug addicted "father" that cannot feed his "family".

I have enough in my own immediate family and I do what I can to help. But they have pulled themselves "up by their bootstraps", got a bit of an education and feed their kids, instead of their addcitions.

I feel for the poor and/or homeless, but do something to help yourselves, please! I'm the one in the car that holds up traffic to give a buck or 2 to the homeless on the freeway exits.

Can't wait to see my great nephews tomorrow morning for breakfast....you know, the ones whose Single Mother works her ASS off to pay for their needs. Yes, I'll pay for the food, but the money doesn't even compare to seeing those beautiful boys, that are my FAMILY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. It already HAPPENED TO MY FAMILY.
Edited on Sat Apr-09-11 03:24 PM by blueamy66
My brother drank himself to death at 35.

I live with his memories....only.

My Dad gave him "welfare" for the last 3 years of his life. Which allowed him to drink himself to death...and leave 3 children.

I take care of my bro's kids and grandkids...monetarily and emotionally.

Before you type shit on a message board...THINK!!!! You don't know everything, k?

On edit: I'm taking the entire crew to breakfast tomorrow morning....wanna join us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #97
116. You're either very ignorant or very mean-spirited.
You really think the government can AFFORD to take away the kids of every poor person who tests positive for drugs or alcohol?! You really think that shoving all those kids into the state system, which is ALREADY overwhelmed and badly funded, is gonna solve the problem?!

There isn't a fucking line down the block of people ready and willing to take foster kids into their "stable homes". The kids there NOW can't seem to get a stable place to live. How fucking hard is THAT to understand?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. SO WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST?
Edited on Sat Apr-09-11 07:33 PM by blueamy66
Are you gonna take them in?

Listen, my "adopted" Grandmother has 4 foster kids in her house. She is 70+ years old. Yeah, that's what our foster care system has become. I bring them "treats" and "suprises" whenever I can.

Why should my hard earned tax dollars to go feed the drug abusers in my country? Why? Just cause they have children. Please.....

Excuse me...gotta go fold my laundry...IN MY USED FRIKKIN' DRYER THAT I BOUGHT FROM CRAIGSLIST CAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD A NEW ONE FROM THE HOME DEPOT!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #97
123. Where Are You Getting
all these stable homes? And you do realize that a child can be just as attached to a parent who is a drug addict as to one who isn't.

Although I do agree that there is too much procreation amongst people who cannot support it, either monetarily or otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #85
95. What you are writing is NOT liberal, let alone "as liberal as it gets", and is PRECISELY why we are
having so many suffering people now... and that includes a LARGE number of children.

BTW, do you know that nationwide, there are 1.65 MILLION homeless school children? You want them all to be drug and alcohol tested, and susbsist on nothing but mac and cheese?

This is what gets me... in other threads on food and nutrition, people insist on claiming that poor people can eat well on little money. Then others, such as you, want poor people to sustain their bodies and the bodies of their children, on low-nutrition food like a diet of mac and cheese.

I wish these two groups would get together and examine their logic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #95
96. WTF?
I don't want the kids tested, just their "parents".

And what is wrong with making mac and cheese with low-fat margarine and low-fat milk? I love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #85
106. The majority of welfare households receive TANF and include at least one child.
TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) is the heir to the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children.) There are also general assistance cash aid programs for adults without child caretaking responsibilities but by far the majority of welfare assistance goes to households with minor children. That's why on threads like this bring up the effect on children.

As to your other comments, bear in mind that mandatory drug testing will have the effect of dissuading heavy drug user parents from seeking cash aid in the first place and in all likelihood their children will suffer MORE because of it. At least with the TANF money there's a chance the money will go towards the child's needs. In addition, parents who fail drug tests aren't necessarily heavy users, nor can one assume that they're paying for drugs out of the TANF funds, or even paying for drugs at all (for example, a friend gives them homegrown pot.) Then of course there are the false positive readings, which will inevitably involve more time and cost to straighten out if there's even a repeal process in place. Lastly, drug tests won't detect alcohol or cigarette overuse and both of these optional activities could be funded from TANF too and have deleterious effects on the child's well-being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #106
118. Is having children a right?
just asking.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-11 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #118
126. Is that relevant to this discussion?
This isn't a thread about birth control or reproductive rights. It's a discussion of adding additional barriers to social safety net access. As I wrote in the previous post, we're talking principally about households that already have children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #126
127. Yes, it is relevant to the discussion.
If I had kids, I might not be able to pay my bills, as kids need food, clothing, shoes, daycare, school supplies, etc.

If a parent would rather spend their money on drugs than feed their kids, they shouldn't be parents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-11 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #127
132. That's moving the goalposts out into the parking lot.
The purpose of drug testing isn't to coerce people to be better parents, and even if it was there would need to be evidence that it actually does that before it's implemented as a social policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #85
122. Not to Burst a Good Outrage
but there are ways of procurring drugs that do not involve money. I have known people who were addicted to drugs who could afford neither drugs nor money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
54. like driving on highways maintained by the government?
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
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. And the "working Americans take drug tests" meme is bunk anyway.
The Constitution doesn't protect you from private employers--it protects you from the government. If you fail a drug test at McDonald's, you can always go try again at Hardee's or Wendy's. If you fail a drug test for welfare, there is NO alternative. The government should never be allowed to search our bodies for evidence of drug use unless there's probable cause that a crime has occurred. Being poor and needing welfare is NOT probable cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Llewlladdwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. The only reason my employer requires me to take a drug test...
is because of Federally mandated drug-free workplace rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. That means you work for a federal contractor.
That requirement doesn't exist for every private employer--just the ones that do work for the government. And if you failed that drug test, you could apply at a different job. What other welfare should people apply to if they eat a poppyseed muffin and test falsely positive for opiates?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. That actually happened to my cousin...false positive on a drug test
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 03:44 PM by Raksha
because he ate a bagel with poppy seeds before the test. At first he was mystified by the positive for opiates since he doesn't use illegal drugs. Fortunately the doctor who tested him asked him about it point-blank, i.e. "Do you eat bagels? With poppy seeds?" From what you said, this is not an uncommon experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Green_Lantern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
58. absolutely not true about only crap jobs doing drug testing...
Most unions require it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #16
86. Nobody is "assuming" that they are on drugs.
But if the test is positive, then it is proof that they are on drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhythm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #86
125. Not if you took a Sudefed for that persistent sniffle, or downed a poppy-seed muffin...
before that piss-test, or committed any number of other perfectly legal actions which can cause a false-positive piss test.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #86
131. 'Proof positive" You DID read #43, right? And you DO understand that singling out a portion of the
population is wrong, correct?

And you DO know that humiliating a group of people with NO "reasonable suspicion" is constitutionally wrong, correct?

And you DO know that morally, this is very akin to Jim Crow laws against a certain group of people, right?

And you wouldn't want YOUR FAMILY subjected to this, including children, right?
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
129. 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
28. 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
32. 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
33. 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 #33
36. 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
38. 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
39. 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 #39
41. 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 #39
44. 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
45. 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
46. 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 #46
49. 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 #49
51. 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
47. 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
48. 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
56. 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
59. 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
60. 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
63. 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 #63
65. 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 #65
82. 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 #82
93. 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 #65
104. 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 #104
115. 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
67. 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
68. 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
75. 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 #75
88. 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 #88
90. 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 #90
91. 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 #88
108. 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
79. 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
84. 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
89. 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
98. 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 #98
102. 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
113. 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
114. 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
121. 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 #121
124. 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 #124
130. 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
133. ...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 Tue Sep 16th 2014, 04:41 PM
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