Welfare recipients to be drug tested...

i was reading in a local paper in kentucky today that theres a bill in the house of Kentucky (house bill 190) that would call for anyone receiving welfare to be drug tested... how does everyone fell about that notion ?

http://www.maysville-online.com/articles/2008/01/21/local_news/1685welfare.txt


p.s. please keep this kicked / recommended so others will be sure to see

I submit we drug test Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the State Legislators before we contemplate drug testing ANYONE else.

Of course, Congress would never approve. Every time it's come up they've squealed "but it would be an invasion of our privacy."

Really? No shit?

expecially when the state is announcing slashes and cutbacks to funding of ALL projects and departments.... saying its a severe financial crisis....
but yet money to drug test people who may or may not use drugs...
seems like they are accusing anyone whos poor or receiving help from the state of being a drug user.

Although Larry Craig might get a rise out of it, the idea of having someone watch you pee in a cup is really disgusting.

The only thing worse is having to be the poor pee monitor, or pee collector, or Officer In Charge of pee.

"Test that, motherfucker."

ROFL!

I submit that making drug use mandatory for lawmakers can only improve government.

:rofl:

I have often thought that if elected government officials are comfortable with allowing drug testing for citizens, shouldn't they be the first in line for the test? Surely if they have nothing to hide they would have no problem with it, right?
I wouldn't want to humiliate any of our fine elected officials so a simple hair drug test every six months should be adequate.

Isn't that what congress passed this invasion for in the first place, to provide cover for the corporations?.?.?

This was one of the very first signs our Constitution was being eroded. No one cared at the time OUR 4th Amendment RIGHTS were being violated. It didn't matter that it was being violated because its only targets drug users. Even if you don't do drugs you could lose your job because of false positives.

People can be soooooo ignorant when it comes to things like this. "But I don't do drugs, so why should I care if they drug test me, nothing could possibly go wrong." I heard this argument hundreds of times.


While we're at it, I think there should be Video Cameras in the offices of congress, with streaming video 24/7. You know transparency at all that jazz.



What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

why when you apply for a job in civil service, they test you, but the pres and
the rest, oh no problem.

years (or should i say: comfortably numb)

When you are down and out, a little heroin or cocaine can really lift your spirits.B-)

Adding drug addiction to a welfare recipiants list of problems was just :sarcasm: , right? What is the state going to do if they fail a drug test, fire them? How would that work? :argh:

Of course I'm against drug testing because I think drugs should all be legal.

Addiction isn't a problem until you run out. Just make sure everyone has a nice supply of whatever it is they like.

It has become an industry. Drug testing companies, private prison companies, rehabilitation clinics, drug smugglers, drug dealers, the defense industry & various governmental agencies that can confiscate property without due process. Are they going to give up all that for a little freedom? They need to fill prison beds in order to make a profit. They need to confiscate property in order to fund the war they don't want to win. The more offenders the better.

"Addiction isn't a problem until you run out."

Right smokers and alcoholics (and their families) dont suffer so long as they have booze and alcohol...

Harm is reduced by legalization and education.

Criminalization and constant bullshit propaganda do nothing to solve the problems associated with substance abuse.

Heroin is much less toxic than alcohol, and it feels great. I've known a lot of junkies who function just fine, hold steady jobs, whatever. I'm not exactly recommending it, but our current approach makes no sense at all. There will always be people who want to take advantage of the amazing plants on this earth in order to get high. Big fucking deal! Why are our brains wired with receptors for this stuff if we aren't supposed to use it?:smoke:

"Harm is reduced by legalization and education."

Really gee we have a ton of education on the dangers of smoking cigeretts every year yet kids still light up..

"Criminalization and constant bullshit propaganda do nothing to solve the problems associated with substance abuse."

Never said they did chap, I merely refuted your claim that 'if its legal and available the problems go away' After all alchol is legal and any kid of an alcoholic can tell you a legal available substance can lead to domestic violence and damaged relationships.

If alcohol and tobacco were illegal, the harm associated with those substances would increase.

"Addiction isn't a problem until you run out."

This is whay you said and its flat out *WRONG*..

When the junkie is seeking a black market substance, he'll steal your tee-vee to get a fix. If the stuff was legal, and available in controlled doses, then the crime and overdose problems would decrease.

Try to keep in mind that many people will continue to attempt to alter their perception, regardless of any puritanical taboos that might exist. No amount of piss-testing or prison building will change that.

The line you quoted me on was slightly tongue-in-cheek, as was my original reply to the OP, but I still stand by them, in the context of getting people to think about harm reduction versus criminalization and propaganda.

Some folks who are really down and out could probably benefit from a little pick-me-up, or maybe a little lay-me-down. If I was living under a bridge, I wouldn't hesitate to do a nice blast of heroin to feel a little better. Big fucking deal!

:P

Okay, tell us everything about you and how much money you made and why you are in need of a safety net. Oh, and let me watch you pee in this cup because you are presumed to be a druggie if you need any kind of assistance.

I don't like pre-employment drug testing and I don't like random drug testing.

Unless the state can come up with enough money to treat the addicts, there'll be alot more people in the streets. Some people are on welfare because they are addicts, can't work and can't get help.

Maybe *maybe* if they use the test to provide treatment but not require a clean result for benefits..

:puke:

Disgusting.

Next thing you know, they'll be incarcerating anyone who isn't off the rolls in a year because "poor people cause crime".

i wrote my local house rep and urged him not to support it(hes a democrat , but i use that term loosely)... i stated it was an invasion of privacy and everyone should have their constitutional rights protected regardless of how much money they make.

whose officers can't wrap their heads around other languages.

and had to give up weed on the weekends. ;(

I can take shrooms, do some acid, and of course, drink all
the Beer I want......

Drug tests are a way to make poor folks drink more.......

that's all.

Personally, I feel it's a way for the Gubmit to make their
subjects buy more corporate liquor.

People in pain, (who have no insurance) are going to
"self medicate".......if they can only chose liquor,
then the Gubmit is Happy.

but alcohol.

AND, we pretty much have to get the alcohol from BIG CORPORATIONS. Weed is a weed and the corporations are behind the ban on it.

politicians, its your turn.

Since they get gov't subsidies.

We have a moral obligation to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. The fact that they failed a drug test does not remove that obligation. I hope that the Kentucky voters can influence their representatives in defeating this nonsense. I suspect one of the sponsors received a large donation from a drug testing company, anyone want to take the other side of that bet?

People getting handouts, from others who put into the system, should be held accountable for _something_.

Otherwise, no DUer who responded in your thread has the right to complain about "government subsidy" to already wealthy corporations. Myself not excluded, which is why I agree - welfare recipients should not be using the money to drug themselves up.

The other issue is jobs for people to get, so they don't have to ruin their lives resorting to what's behind bottle number one... Jobs are being flushed outside of this country the way Ross Perot predicted... one of two factors leading to today's economic crisis; but the jobs one outweighs the oil argument by far. (people CAN live closer to work, bike, et al. And the oil companies are NEVER going to go broke, that's pretty obvious.)

Not the easiest issue, but at least it's a refreshing change from the "That candidate is rubbish" sort that's commonplace around here these days.

"People getting handouts, from others who put into the system, should be held accountable for _something"

What authoritarian crap -- right-wing bullshit!

Ah, the people in power have succeeded with anyone who can parrot this nonsense -- they have successfully divided and conquered.

Some people need HELP -- they aren't as fortunate as others -- for nearly ALL OF THEM it's NOT THEIR FAULT it's the fault of a system that rewards the few at the expense of the many.

Quit blaming the VICTIMS!

what the hell they are talking about. zero literacy about poverty, oppression, discrimination, institutionalized racism etc

blaming the victims is something some people here specialize at. ironically the same people never take responsibility for any of their own actions.

point?

Why would you assume they're spending the welfare money on drugs when they are so easily shared for free?

:puke:

yeah I thought so

"...and it will go into effect just as soon as you, the members of your board and company officers all pass your drug tests."

:rofl:

They're still people. And if they have kids, their kids still need to eat and have shelter.

It's just an excuse make poor people starve and become homeless and try to avoid feeling any guilt over it. They figure people will "other" these folks enough that it'll be an easy sell to the whole state.

we certainly don't humiliate and degrade the poor enough. we should spend more money on stripping them of their privacy, dignity, and self-respect, and far less on the pittance they receive from welfare.

Drug testing IMHO is really an inappropriate and intrusive requirement for a lot of jobs let alone as a condition for receiving public assistance not only because it is an unwarranted invasion into the lives of people most of whom are only trying to get (what is usually only MEAGER) assistance to survive on a daily basis but it also reinforces odious myths and stereotypes about people receiving public assistance. Although there are undoubtedly people whom are on public assistance using illegal substances (and financing their habit through public assistance), the vast majority of recipients do not and to subject all recipients to drug testing would be simply inappropriate not to mention terribly impractical as others have already mentioned.

My wife and I fostered, for a short time, a drug addicted infant whose welfare mother was spending her checks on methadone, some of which she gave to the baby to "stop his crying". If they are using drugs they should be strictly monitored to make certain that the money they receive from the tax-payer is put to the use it is intended, not to enable their addiction.

People in glass houses.... Shouldn't throw stones... either.

Are you saying that you have never imbibed in alcohol, legal or illegal drugs? Ever?

And you are a member of a Democratic messageboard? What part of freedom did you miss?

Did you take a wrong turn?

is a "freedom" nor trading your daughter for drugs or many of the other things that some of those impaired by drugs do. If you choose to defend those actions go for it. And if I thought that defense of these sort of actions were a requirement to be a Democrat I would not be one.

And you didn't answer my questions.

your asinine questions.

:hi:

I used to drink a lot and I used to smoke a little weed.
Now I've answered your question, you answer mine.
Have you ever taken in to your home a drug-addicted baby that at 10 months old was unable to crawl and could only communicate by screaming because his mother had given him drugs. If not, give it a try, it's a real eye-opener. Then maybe you'd be a bit less judgmental about me.
Good night.

but if I did, I would be for getting the mother help, not looking to have her incarcerated, lose any income to take care of the child and turn her life to a living hell! Methadone is usually used to help people get off heroin and it seems that was what she was trying to do and maybe failed but it can work with the right support. But going all judgmental on her when you yourself had a problem is hypocritical. Thank you for caring enough to take care of the baby. I hope the Mom gets treatment and recovers.

We do need more drug treatment available and to allow people to get help without being incarcerated. The only problem is that when families are involved how do you get that mother to actually seek the help? I wouldn't have a huge issue with the testing for hard drugs ( I believe pot should be legal) if there were programs in place already to assist these people without criminalizing them.

Kicking them off assistance is not the answer. An addict will turn to robbery unless they are made to get help.

I had to look after a friends junkie baby for a while after she was born because mummy was too busy scoring.

I still think you're wrong and it's NOT your place to decide how people spend their money, regardless of how that money arrives in their possesion.

Besides what do you think will happen to the welfare of the child if it's parents have no income? Do you honestly think that an addict stops using drugs because they run out of money?

How humanitarian.

There was nothing about forcing them onto the streets, I said they should be monitored to be certain the money they received was used for the intended purpose. That would include little niceties like diapers, formula and things of that nature rather than drugs, some of which are used to keep the baby quiet.
If that is beyond your understanding, let me know and I'll try to use smaller words.

if someone turned up dirty on a test, then they would stop getting the checks - right?

I said "if the person is using drugs, they should be strictly monitored to make certain the money they receive, from the taxpayers, is used for its intended purpose and not to enable their addiction".
If you can't understand what I said. I'll try to upload some simple drawings.

Perhaps a nap is in order?

I read what you wrote, but again, the implication (meaning, FYI, that it was not stated explicitly) still remains that action be taken against someone found to be in violation of the statute which could reasonably be assumed to be that they will stop receiving checks.

Childrens Protective Services and see if they'll let you take a drug-addicted infant home for a few weeks. After that, we will have shared a common experience, then we can debate. Being a gentleman I'll allow you to argue the premise that drug addicted parents should not be kept from using their welfare funds to buy drugs and give then to their infant children to keep the baby from crying due to hunger, spending the day in shitty diapers or just general lack of attention, love and the very basics of care.

I find it ironic that you are the one who is questioning the ability of others to correctly comprehend the things that they read.

Also, I don't see how your personal experiences have any bearing on this discussion - aside from a rather blatant appeal to emotion. Your personal experience (indeed, any individual's personal experience) has little relevance to a wider debate on policy. Perhaps, though, mere mortals such as myself should not even be allowed to engage in debate with such virtuous individuals as yourself.



:rofl: If you say so.

If they don't meet your accepted standards of spending? Do you take away their income? what do you think will happen to the kid if mummy/daddy has no income?

Do you think for a second a heroin addict will say "oh well better stop taking smack and buy nappies instead"

This is why policy based on moral outrage is stupid and shortsighted

I said monitored. And part of the problem is that heroin addicts will not "stop taking smack and buy nappies instead" unless someone makes them.
Like I said to another poster, foster a drug-addicted infant for a few weeks then come back and tell me you have no "moral outrage".
I'm outta here, it's impossible to reason with people that think a drug addict has some civil right to deprive their baby of basic care in order to feed their addiction.

You may find reasoning impossible because you are responding to the strawmen you yourself created.

No-one says that "people that think a drug addict has some civil right to deprive their baby of basic care in order to feed their addiction"

Not once.

You can repeat "monitored" as many times as you like but if there is no consequence then there's no fucking point monitoring it is there. If there is no sanction for behaviour why bother watching it.

It will also keep others from following through with monitoring in order to keep the benefits. In both those cases the children in those family will suffer.

Then there's the difference between casual drug users and addicts. In a one size fits all drug testing mentality, someone with evidence of pot smoking is penalized on the presumption that it's a regular and out of control thing or that the person's been using the TANF grant to buy pot. It is illegal regardless and not behavior that should be encouraged, but denying benefits to the minor children because the parent smoked a joint provided by a friend is a pretty severe punishment. Meanwhile, the alcohol-addicted parents get a pass.

Your experience is with a drug addicted infant. Mine is living in a low income neighborhood with many welfare recipients. I knew addicted parents who were quite adept at taking care of their kids. I also knew ones who should have had intervention and possibly removal of their kids. Most of the latter eventually went off welfare because they forgot to recertify or blew off social worker visits and their children were essentially out of sight to the social workers.

A more rational approach is to hire more social workers to keep on top of the caseload and to look more carefully for signs of children at risk. It'd be nice if the parents were offered drug counseling too, but we have a public policy of offering drug services to low income addicts only after they enter the court system.

Electronic Benefits For Needy Yet To Deliver On Promise

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=13794

Tuesday, September 21, 1999

The switch to the delivery of cash and food stamp benefits by electronic card is costing many of the nation's poor money and inconvenience, advocates say. With the transition, states have handed over responsibility for the systems to private banks. Advocates for the poor say the deals the states have struck with these banks have diminished much of the promise the new technology once held.

"I think it has a lot of potential to be a good thing. I think it is unfortunate that some of that potential has been squandered." said David Super, General Counsel for the Center on Budget and Public Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group in Washington.

Among the most controversial developments are new restrictions on travel for food stamp users and new ATM fees for welfare recipients.

When the states began changing to new swipe- or smart-card systems to deliver benefits to the poor in the early 1990s, they promised savings for taxpayers and simplicity for participants. The cards would bring single mothers on welfare into the banking system and that would improve their financial acumen, proponents said.

Under the 1996 welfare law, Congress directed states to establish electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems for food stamps. So far, 39 states have fully or partially complied. Twenty-nine of those states require welfare recipients get their cash assistance the same way.

As food stamp coupons disappeared, the food-stamp program was supposed to realize the most savings. That has not happened yet.

"The administrative savings are not going to be as dramatic as early predictions indicated," said Phil Shanholtzer, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the food-stamp program.

Some advocates say the cards have reduced the stigma of public assistance for many who depend on food stamps. Recipients no longer have to count out coupons in front of strangers. In many states, recipients can use the same machines as ATM cardholders.

But food stamp recipients have lost a key benefit they once had. For the most part, they cannot use their new cards when they travel to other regions of the country. Illinois cards cannot be used in Washington, D.C. Under the old system, recipients could take their paper coupons anywhere.

U.S. Rep. Robert Goodlatte, a Republican from Virginia, has introduced legislation in Washington that would require all states to use the same cards by 2002.

More.....

This is not to say that I am for monitoring. I just wanted to clear this up.

The cash portion of benefits can be retrieved via an ATM machine.

can be withdrawn in cash and can even send rent checks, utility payments directly to the landlords and utility co's.

Constantly at work influencing legislation -- all for your own good, of course.

And targeting the poor to gain your tax dollars is a winning situation!

:grr:

I think the proponents of this should be drug, IQ and alcohol tested.

and actually read people's responses.

YOU think people on welfare should be "monitored" unfortunately policy needs to be a little more fleshed out than that. There are important questions that you clearly havn'y given any thought to in favour knee jerk moral outrage

* Should ALL people on welfare be "monitored" or just those that some busybody suspects of taking drugs
* What does "monitoring" mean, a weekly visit by a social worker or enforced urine tests?
* What should happen if it's established that a parent is using welfare checks to buy drugs? Stop the checks? then what happens to the kid? Jail the parent? again what happens to the kid

It is not as simple as your tabloid response suggests

welfare is for children, AFDC.

Blatant racism and bigotry against people of color/people who are poor.

Sickening.

:-(

the publics reply: like congress isn't? who is paying for your fucking health insurance...senator and congressman? it doesn't HAVE to come with the job, you know.

who would recognize drug abuse and could then refer to the experts, but what would be the fun in a social and justice system without punitive measures.

And that's the last thing those in power would want -- to create a caring, humane society when they make TOOOOO much money off of the current hateful one.

every week that the law is enforced.

Oh, and anyone who's ever been to a Grateful Dead concert. All high school students, too, since it's obvious most of them get high, too. :sarcasm:

:bounce:

economy in a country that is going broke. Who knows it might even expand a few minds. We could sorely use that.

Within the phony "war on drugs."

i have found that something similar to this was struck down in michigan by a court as unconstitutional....
i received an email from my house rep stating that the bill would not pass and had been struck down by the michigan court back in 1999 and not to worry about it.

the comments alone on the newspapers website are troubling enough though.
people are sick....

dont they realise its a slipperly slope?
i mean, whats next? drug testing to receive your retirement check?

I'm glad it was found unconstitutional.

9/11 changed everything.

by creating as many obstacles as possible.

they moved the page to here, erased the comments, and changed the writer

http://www.maysville-online.com/articles/2008/01/21/local_news/1681drugtesting.txt


already more disgusting comments

:sarcasm:

In accordance with their BS stereotypes.

can you believe. shock the shit out of me. my 12 yr old let me know the other night and hubby fact checked it. falls behind calif adn hawaii.... number three in producing. pot .... the highest cash crop for kent. wow

at one time kentucky was the leading producer of hemp, before it was criminalized.

States don't think it through. Isn't there some liability if they leave the kids there? Should they take the kids if it is pot? Can parent get back on if they get clean? How do they prove that? They have to keep giving benefits for the kids, they only take the drug using parent off the case.

As to treatment, it is very expensive and not very effective.

We need to make more of 'em. And hopefully they'll be addicted to drugs when they are on the street, so we really take all their hope away.

Good times.

And a vision of *New Democrats* that looked and smelled an awful lot like the GOPosse.

That's it. I'm voting for Romney.

:eyes:

I say this as an Edwards supporter. Must we have a "bash Clinton" post in every single thread?

He was appeasing the right wing at the expense of the poor!!

No

NO

NO

(The morality of testing these people in the first place aside)

1) The people who are really going to be hurt by this are the children. So mom smoked a j. BFD. And now you're sleeping in the gutter and going to bed hungry every night. And this is going to break the cycle of poverty how?

2) I'm more worried about welfare recipients spending their money on alcohol (beyond a resonable point). Alcoholism is a societal scourge.

I'd say the thing to do in a just society is give people on welfare who request help with substance abuse the help they need without judgement.

It would make more sense (not to mention be more constitutional) to reduce drug use (and welfare recipients) by providing better education & job opportunities as opposed to humiliating piss-searches.

Why do we always want to choose the route that potentially violates the constitution as opposed to a more permanent & dignified solution?

nt

Drug addiction is a health problem. Are there any other health problems that should get people kicked out into the streets?

If welfare is given out only to people the government deems moral, who else will be kicked out into the street?

everything except marijuana is out of the system in a relatively short period of time, so what does testing do? It doesn't prove a person doesn't use drugs, just that they haven't recently. IMO Drug testing should only be done after there is cause to believe someone may be using. For example, our pretzledent who isn't capable of articulating a simple sentence.

many of which are menial or marginal jobs. Come to think of it, these jobs are the ones that poor people would get. Hmmmmmm.

There's too little real organizational opposition to this corporate mentality.