Mandatory Drug Test for all Public Assistance? (salaries, Clinton, deport)

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by inspiringmind

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.

Do you really think kicking them out of public housing or sending them to prison is going to be cheaper than directly dealing with any addiction problem they have as a medical problem requiring rehabilitation? Rehab is cheaper than prison. Prison does not prepare anyone for success in life, only more and larger crimes. People who are kicked out of public housing will have to live somewhere, only they will be more desperate. America needs to focus less on punsihment and more on actually solving problems. No wonder we have more people in prison than the 3 most populous countries on the planet COMBINED.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by marmac

---less than 10% of the population were using any illegal drugs------

Cutting 10% of people off welfare would save a huge amount of money. $$$$$$$$$$$.

First, you need to consider that even our government studies show that cannabis is a non toxic and relatively harmless drug that has medicinal properties (not withstanding the self serving budget raising fears touted by the DEA) that is primarily illegal because of politics, not medical fact or public danger, and that 7 out of the 100 people tested positive for that drug alone. So only 3 people out of 100 tested positive for the other illegal drugs the testers were testing for. But you should consider that the cost to test 100% of that population to find those 3% may out weigh the supposed benefit. Drugs that were not tested for that are legal like alcohol and opiates, even tylenol, are toxic and may impair judgement. Many legal drugs will cause dizziness or drowsy responses and suggest you not operate equipment. Alcohol causes more damage to society than all the illegal drugs combined. Do the research. Even if your solution, kicking the 3 percent who use potentially harmful illegal drugs out of public housing, where do you think they are going to go? How do you think they will survive? Because they will survive, somehow, and I'd suspect the cost to society will be greater than if they stayed in public housing and any addiction problem they had were treated as a medical problem. If they don't have an addiction, and many drug users do not, then simply the threat of losing some benefit will be enough to change some behaviors. A daconian punishment approach is not going to solve any problems and is likely to increase costs, not decrease them.

[cpsTN]

Originally Posted by jtur88

What costs too much money? What are you talking about?

Is it an invasion of privacy to run a blood alcohol test on a motorist who has just caused an accident? Is it an invasion of privacy to ask a welfare recipient if he owns a second house in the country, or drives a Range Rover, or if those are really her children?

I agree with some of this. If anyone is taking any public assistance, they should adhere to some rules. I am currently on Food Stamps. I do not use drugs but if the gov't wanted to test me before they continued the assistance that would be fine because what they test for is ILLEGAL and I shouldn't be taking them regardless of my financial situation.

I know what you by a second house. If I had one, I would definately sell it and use the money to improve my situation. I agree about the range rover too, if you are talking about value. Does it still count if you have a paid for vehichle that was, say, $30K new but is not worth only, say, $8K or $10K. I have a 1988 Dodge Dakota and a 1999 Chevy Malibu. I agree with your assertion. If I had lost my job and I needed assistance while driving a new (newish) Lexus or something, a-selling it I would be. Just makes sense!

Charles

[texdav]

Who is going to pay for these test is really the problem. Every supposed good idea comes with services that increase cost for the program.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by cpsTN

I agree with some of this. If anyone is taking any public assistance, they should adhere to some rules. I am currently on Food Stamps. I do not use drugs but if the gov't wanted to test me before they continued the assistance that would be fine because what they test for is ILLEGAL and I shouldn't be taking them regardless of my financial situation. Charles

Yes, people in a program should follow the rules of the program in order to remain in the program, agreed. But look Charles, you shouldn't be a falling down drunk either, but by your logic that is OK, because it is sanctioned by your government, who knows the affects of alcohol on society, and your health, but nevertheless has made it legal. You have a right to not have your person violated without probable cause by your government. You are saying you would voluntarily give up that right, and your dignity (here pee in this cup in front of this officer) because someone thinks that people in your circumstance might be using something that is legal in your state (or not) but illegal according to the federal government. So you are saying that the 14 states that have a medical marijuana program are wrong and that your daddy, the federal government, who you would allow to think for you, is right? You are saying that the more than 270 studies done on marijuana this past year alone, and the over 20,000 studies done in the last 40 years are wrong. That the American Medical Association, which has petitioned the DEA to allow even more research into the medical properties of marijuana, which may even include a cancer cure, are wrong? I wish I had your confidence in the federal government, and your willingness to give up your rights and freedoms to them, but since so many Americans died so that I could have that freedom, I don't - and neither should you. Just because you are poor or down on your luck right now, doesn't make you any less of a person, entitled to the same rigts and freedoms that any other American enjoys. Try not to forget that.

[MysticSpiraling]

I've not read all of this, so if I'm stating something again, sorry... It's not that I have a problem with people smoking marijuana. In fact, I have no problem with it at all! Being from Alaska where marijuana was legalized long ago, I think it's silly that we don't do it everywhere. HOWEVER if you are on welfare, I have no problem with drug testing, as I don't want to be paying for your drugs. Not because it's a drug and "against my morals" but guess what? Because drugs are illegal, they are not taxed upon. When you buy beer, or porn (not that on welfare you need to be buying these things...) at least you're feeding into the ecomony, not sliding money under the table to your dealer. I personally would have no problem submitting to a drug test if I were being given government assistance, because I wouldn't be spending my money on drugs! Or beer and liquor, or anything else "unnecessary" that's listed here. And if it took a simple test to allow me the money to support myself and my family, so be it. *shrugs*

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by MysticSpiraling

I've not read all of this, so if I'm stating something again, sorry... It's not that I have a problem with people smoking marijuana. In fact, I have no problem with it at all! Being from Alaska where marijuana was legalized long ago, I think it's silly that we don't do it everywhere. HOWEVER if you are on welfare, I have no problem with drug testing, as I don't want to be paying for your drugs. Not because it's a drug and "against my morals" but guess what? Because drugs are illegal, they are not taxed upon. When you buy beer, or porn (not that on welfare you need to be buying these things...) at least you're feeding into the ecomony, not sliding money under the table to your dealer. I personally would have no problem submitting to a drug test if I were being given government assistance, because I wouldn't be spending my money on drugs! Or beer and liquor, or anything else "unnecessary" that's listed here. And if it took a simple test to allow me the money to support myself and my family, so be it. *shrugs*

Ok, so you don't have a problem with people smoking marijuana, as long as it is not "those people' on public assistance. Then you have a problem because they are not using their resources the way you want them to. What else don't you approve of, since you feel you (the government) should have a say in how they live and what they do? Are they raising their kids in a way that you agree with? Maybe we should take their children away and put them in camps, where the government can raise them to your standards. While we're at it, maybe we should sterilize them too. After all, if you are paying for them, and they can't afford the children they have now, you might want to limit their family size. Now that you are in their bedroom, are they doing anything else in there you don't like? Maybe we can arrest them. You see, once you go down this road, suspecting everyone of illegal activity until they prove otherwise, than even the innocent have something to fear. These people are not your children, just because you may foot the bill to put a roof over their heads and feed them. They are adult Americans and deserve the same rights, freedoms, and dignity of person that you have, regardless of their economic situation. I also find your "reasoning" pretty strange. You are against people using marijuana or other illegal drugs because the transactions are not taxed? There are lots of things that are not taxed that people on public assistance spend money on, like food, and most of it is not taxed. In some locations clothes are not taxed either. Do you have a problem with that? No? So it's only the things you don't approve of that are a problem. You are prepared to tell others the right way to live, and punish them if they don't behave. I see. Let's go to your other point. When you pay the "dealer", don't you love the retoric of prohibition. Someone who sells you illegal drugs is a "dealer" but if they are selling you alcohol, they are a small business person. Anyway, when you pay your "dealer" the money doesn't just disappear, just ask Wells Fargo Bank, which paid one of the largest fines for money laundering ( of Mexican Cartel money) in US history. Just like your money, it more often than not, goes into a bank, where the bank uses it for legitimate business loans. The big distributors are not keeping billions of dollars at home under their beds. You say you would have no problem periodically proving that you were not using illegal drugs, so you could get public assistance. You should have a problem if you are an American, because so many people died to protect you from a government that invasive to your person without due process. Have you heard of a document called the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights? You might want to read them sometime. Since you are so agreeable, I suppose you wouldn't mind then wearing a yellow arm band while you are receiving public assistance, identifying you to the rest of us while you get that help? After all, you've done nothing wrong (although you could be an illegal drug user, and we'd like to know who we are talking to) so you wouldn't mind just letting us identify you more easily, would you? That worked so well in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's to identify a certain group of people, so it could work here too amongst "those people" on public assistance. Sounds like you would be the first in line. It never ceases to amaze me how easily so many Americans are willing to give up their own rights, or to target others (usually the poor and powerless) and take away their rights.

[AnnieA]

....marmac....Workers do not pay into unemployment insurance

The employer is assessed the cost based on the hazards of the occupation of his workers and the history/frequency of his workers drawing it.

unemployment is not based on hazards of occupation, that is workers compensation, which is an experience rated contract, just as unemployment. You use it, you pay a higher premium, with certain limits. In Florida, the employer pays it all.

[spankys bbq]

I say absolutely drug test for public assistance. I cannot understand how some people can say that a person who is given money on a monthly basis for doing nothing other than breathing and/or procreating shouldn't be held to some standard. I think its absurd.

Instead of mandatory drug testing, I would support a fixed time limit on how long one can be a recipient of government benefits. If we don't stop the generational dependency on government aid, it will spiral out of control and get to the point where it will be nearly impossible to pay for.

[misplaced1]

Originally Posted by marmac

---less than 10% of the population were using any illegal drugs------

Cutting 10% of people off welfare would save a huge amount of money. $$$$$$$$$$$.

I wonder how much the cost would be to test every person on aid.