Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try legalizing drugs and treating the abusers as a health problem rather than a criminal one. This way we aren't asking anyone to give up their right to privacy and drug prevention and usage can come out of the shadows and be dealt with in a manner that is dignified for all. Drug addicts are no different than alcoholics.
The problem exacerbates when the drug addict must sell drugs to support their habit or if the sales are big enough, to create a job for someone who might otherwise train for something more productive in society.
Take the crime out of drugs and everyone will be better off in the long run.
It should be;
"If you want any type of government assistance you should be clean of illegal drugs. If not then that is your choice."
To allow government money to be used to subsidize drugs is BS and to just give up because it will take effort to weed (no pun) them out is a cop-out.
NO PEE NO MONEY!
The real problem in poor households is alcohol, not illegal drugs. Many of you seem to be offended that someone on public assistance is using that money for something illegal, but as the Michigan study showed, less than 10% of the tested population were using any illegal drugs and only 3% were using something beyond cannabis. Alcohol contributes to more child neglect, more beatings of wives and children, more lost wages, and more misery generally than all the other drugs combined. Drug testing is only going to disclose cannabis users, because that is the only drug that persists in the body long term. Cannabis is a relatively mild nontoxic drug that has health benefits and only a few mild side effects. The basis of cannabis prohibition was racism. The other drugs, legal and illegal, will be processed through their systems in at most a few days, usually less. The DEA says that perscription drug abuse is the worse drug threat theatening the USA today, not illegal drugs. We should use our resources where they will do the most good. This testing is not going to solve any problems except the statisfaction of those many Americans who would like to tell the rest of us how to live. We still have a constitution in this country, and although it isn't followed very often anymore, it should be. So not only don't I agree with this testing idea, it isn't legal to single out a group in this manner. Why don't you next suggest that welfare receipients wear armbands, just so we righteous citizens can know who they are, because that is what you are really suggesting, that these people, the majority of whom are law abiding, are somehow different and less than us, and don't deserve the same protections, dignity and respect that we deserve. Weeding out fraud is a worthwhile goal, but going after the innocent who are weak and helpless for a possible small gain is hardly a sign of a great and noble society.
Great idea, never thought of it. Yes, drug test them for any controlled substance including meds that they do not have a valid script for and alcohol. They are taking money from the govt, they do not have the right of privacy in that scenario. Kind of like when you still lived at home and your parents said, my house, my rules, you want to live by your own rules, move out and get your own place! Same scenario.
The real problem in poor households is alcohol, not illegal drugs. Many of you seem to be offended that someone on public assistance is using that money for something illegal, but as the Michigan study showed, less than 10% of the tested population were using any illegal drugs and only 3% were using something beyond cannabis. Alcohol contributes to more child neglect, more beatings of wives and children, more lost wages, and more misery generally than all the other drugs combined. Drug testing is only going to disclose cannabis users, because that is the only drug that persists in the body long term. Cannabis is a relatively mild nontoxic drug that has health benefits and only a few mild side effects. The basis of cannabis prohibition was racism. The other drugs, legal and illegal, will be processed through their systems in at most a few days, usually less. The DEA says that perscription drug abuse is the worse drug threat theatening the USA today, not illegal drugs. We should use our resources where they will do the most good. This testing is not going to solve any problems except the statisfaction of those many Americans who would like to tell the rest of us how to live. We still have a constitution in this country, and although it isn't followed very often anymore, it should be. So not only don't I agree with this testing idea, it isn't legal to single out a group in this manner. Why don't you next suggest that welfare receipients wear armbands, just so we righteous citizens can know who they are, because that is what you are really suggesting, that these people, the majority of whom are law abiding, are somehow different and less than us, and don't deserve the same protections, dignity and respect that we deserve. Weeding out fraud is a worthwhile goal, but going after the innocent who are weak and helpless for a possible small gain is hardly a sign of a great and noble society.
---less than 10% of the population were using any illegal drugs------
Cutting 10% of people off welfare would save a huge amount of money. $$$$$$$$$$$.
Great idea, never thought of it. Yes, drug test them for any controlled substance including meds that they do not have a valid script for and alcohol. They are taking money from the govt, they do not have the right of privacy in that scenario.Kind of like when you still lived at home and your parents said, my house, my rules, you want to live by your own rules, move out and get your own place! Same scenario.
If this is the same scenario, wouldn't that mean those parents give their kids mandatory drug tests without suspicion every time they spend money on their kids?
Is this a reasonable thing for parents to do? I don't think so. First of all, it's costly. But I think everyone deserves a right to privacy, unless there is reasonable suspicion.
If this is the same scenario, wouldn't that mean those parents give their kids mandatory drug tests without suspicion every time they spend money on their kids?
Is this a reasonable thing for parents to do? I don't think so. First of all, it's costly. But I think everyone deserves a right to privacy, unless there is reasonable suspicion.
---But I think everyone deserves a right to privacy-----
We don't have privacy now. We have selected privacy.
EXAMPLE------every farmer who recieves any subsidy from the farm bill has their name, address, and $$$ amount made public.
( despite farm subsidy spending is a small percent of farm bill spending)
When we come to nutritional aid ( which accounts for over 67% of farm bill expenditures) all who recieve food stamp money have their names ,addresses, and $$$ amounts kept private.
First, when you are being drug tested it is because you broke the law in some way that involved drugs or alcohol. I seriously doubt you will ever see someone who is standing in front of a judge because they shop lifted being asked to take a drug test. Even if it was a felony. They'd get unsupervised probation.
As for taking children away from parents that do drugs. I can understand if it is something like meth or crack and the house is filthy. In the state that I live in (Ohio) weed is decriminalized. If child protective is called to your house and you admit to them that you are smoking weed, they will talk to you for about a half and hour and then close the case. They are not allowed to take your kids unless weed is found in your child's body.
Even if they tested welfare recipients, in the end they could not random drug test anyone. If you have to prove to them once a year that you qualify for benefits, then you could only be tested once a year at that time. I certainly don't see the welfare office beating down doors to make sure that only the people on the welfare case are living in the house or checking to see if your friend is letting you borrow $20. Then that leads to, who do they test? There is always one adult that is the head of household and the welfare case is in their name. So do they test that person or every adult in the house?
Even if they started testing everyone once a year people know when their review is coming up. If you smoke weed you stop for a few months before the appointment. If you smoke meth or anything else you can do drugs till the week before the test (appointment) and it would come out negative.
Maybe they should start testing people to make sure they don't have any other issues that use government money, some people have shopping addictions, others have gambling addictions.
Could you imagine the expense of doing these drug tests? In a large city especially. The people at the welfare office have a hard enough time just doing the job they have now.
---But I think everyone deserves a right to privacy-----
We don't have privacy now. We have selected privacy.
EXAMPLE------every farmer who recieves any subsidy from the farm bill has their name, address, and $$$ amount made public.
( despite farm subsidy spending is a small percent of farm bill spending)
When we come to nutritional aid ( which accounts for over 67% of farm bill expenditures) all who recieve food stamp money have their names ,addresses, and $$$ amounts kept private.
Double standard regarding welfare !
Wait.. so are you for "selected privacy" or against it? if against, are you for privacy for all or against privacy for all?
In any case, your examples are largely irrelevant here. A person's drug test results would likely never be made public even if mandatory drug testing for all public assistance was enacted.
No, but they would find some poor schlupp to live with who gets welfare for her and her kids.
It's unbelievable the amount of men who mooch off welfare women. They live with them but off the books because the women would not get welfare if the state knew those men were there.
If the women were found out that they were supporting men in their house while they are on welfare, they would be kicked off the rolls.
This is what I think that the welfare department should be checking up on instead of drug testing. The woman who has 3+ kids who lives in a section 8 house or a high rise in the city and has no income. The woman whose boyfriend comes over and spends the night whenever and gives her a few hundred dollars everyday or whatever. (Cause he sells drugs) Since cash isn't traceable through a bank account or whatever there is no way for them to find the income coming in.
Try legalizing drugs and treating the abusers as a health problem rather than a criminal one. This way we aren't asking anyone to give up their right to privacy and drug prevention and usage can come out of the shadows and be dealt with in a manner that is dignified for all. Drug addicts are no different than alcoholics.
How much money would it cost to treat that health problem though? If they have to do inpatient (for hard drugs/alcohol) the costs start at $7,000 a month. Even if they do an outpatient program, they usually last about 6 to 12 months and that costs a couple of thousand a month. I have been through an outpatient program (completed it after 9 months) and they drill into you how only a small percentage of people who start the program actually finish it and then how after they are done only a small percentage stay off drugs. I was in NA and both NA and AA always talked about how 90%+ of people who go to meetings end up out and using again. Just like the DUI person, they will do the year probation and do outpatient programs and after they are done they just drink again. What's the point of paying all that money just to have them use drugs later? and I am sure they will hide it better too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about reality?
