Mandatory Drug Test for all Public Assistance? (fast food, Congress, minimum wage)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

Although we can't be certain, it appears that what the Neanderthals did was get pushed out of the best territory in favor of Homo Sapiens, after which they rapidly became extinct. So I don't think they are a very good example of superiority over anyone living today.

Homo Sapiens also had the common sense to move on.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

AUnless were now deporting our poor, I don't think anyone on US Public Assistance is going to be farming in Paraguay.

That's because they aren't properly motivated.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

If there is no War on Drugs that would be news to the DEA, which has called it exactly that (until this year), and which has spent about half a trillion dollars, at least, fighting this war, or giving grants to local police forces to fight it.

The "War on Drugs" is rhetorical euphemism.

Put me in charge and your war is over in 6 months.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

So, you want to be so involved with the day to day activities of the poor, the majority of which are law abiding folks just like you, that you want to be able to control not only what illegal substances thay want to ingest but also the legal substances too?

Absolutely.

The poor want someone to hold their hand and walk them through every minute of their life, so let's do that.

The issue here is fraud. It's also about taking ownership and acting responsibly both in a financial sense and in the sense of an human being with a family.

The poor claim they don't have enough money for food and housing and medical expenses.

I say they have plenty of money, but they aren't spending it properly because they have a financial IQ of Zero and no ethics or morals.

Turn off the $80 cable, get rid of the $120/month cell-phone, stop spending $200/month on cigarettes, $70/month on alcohol and $150/month on lotto and guess what?

That's $620 to buy food.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

What about candy for the kids or birthday gifts? They don't really need them, would you ban those too? Where would your facist state end, at the bedroom, or do you want to control how many children they have too?

That's a nice strawman argument topped with a red-herring.

I vote that you buy their alcohol, lotto and tobacco, and pay for their cell-phones and cable with money out of your own pocket.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

Do I need to explain to you that we live in a country governed by a Constitution and Bill of Rights?

No, and I could probably bury you in so much case law in about 5 seconds your head would spin.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

That they extend to all citizens, not just the more well off? That a person, regardless of income, has a right to be presumed innocent, and to be left alone by their government?

That's another fine strawman argument.

The issue here is has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence.

The issue here is that if you want government assistance, you'll have to meet certain standards and if do not want to meet those standards, then you'll have to get assistance elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

Or are you a recent immigrant from some totalitarian state where concerpts like yours are the status quo?

I'm a Romanian but I was born in the US and have dual citizenship, and unlike you, I'm also a decorated veteran of the US Army.

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

No, they should not test people on welfare for drugs. They should just get rid of welfare instead. It causes more problems than it solves.

That's kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I would agree that the federal government should be banned from providing welfare. That is something the states could provide to their residents and they could do it more efficiently and effectively with tailored programs instead of the federal governments "one size fits all even though it has nothing to do with the problem."

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

If only 3% of the population in public housing is using, than random drug testing is not going to be a very effective way of policing that population, but will have the effect of creating multiple law suits about discrimination, racism and civil rights issues, negating any savings you might realize removing these folks from public housing.

Who said anything about random drug testing?

I'm talking about 100% testing every 6 months with in invasive hair sample.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

What is the goal of such a testing program?

For the benefit of those without any common sense or who are totally lacking in imagination, I'll explain that.

Some idiot actually believes there is a "War on Drugs."

If there was a "War on Drugs" then why are 100% of the people entering the US searched?

Can't do that? Oh, brother, looks like someone's knowledge of US Supreme Court rulings is just appallingly pathetic.

Anytime the US wants to have a "War on Drugs" it can implement a 100% search of all persons entering the US. Those who do not wish to consent to such a search don't have to do so, but then they can't enter the US.

That would have a significant impact on the street availability on certain drugs, namely heroin, opium and opium derivatives and cocaine (um, no, no one smuggles crack into the US because cocaine is water soluble -- oh, you didn't know that).

While attacking the supply (and a real war would include cruise missile and air strikes on processing facilities located in other countries) it's also necessary to attack the demand.

In the US, attacking demand is basically arresting users, which does nothing but waste the time of police, clog up the courts and clog up the jails and prisons and also damages people's prospects for a better future by dinging them with a felony conviction.

A less costly way of attacking demand is to tie benefits at all levels of government to drug testing.

Not only should we test those who apply for Section 8 HUD housing, food stamp and medicaid, but we should also test those who receive Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Benefits (SSDI).

I formally invite you to Cincinnati (at your own expense) to pal around with the folks at Tender Mercies. These are supposedly "homeless people" with alleged "mental illnesses" who receive lots of government benefits. In reality these are addicts and alcoholics and grown men who are addicted to video games and who are addicts and alcoholics.

After you give $50 cash to one of the residents of Tender Mercies for $200 worth of food stamps so they can buy crack and marijuana, I'll walk with you down to Kroger's and you can use the food stamp card you just illegally purchased to buy some food.

We can also tie federal and state student loans and aid into drug testing. If you don't want to be tested, that's fine, but don't expect a handout from the government.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

Do you want to punish lifestyles different from yours that you object to?

No, I want to punish fraud, waste and abuse.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

Do you want to eliminate violence in the projects? because drug use does not cause violence. You might say drug sales cause violence, but it's really the prohibition that causes violence by creating a high profit, low margin business, with no regulatory controls.

Well see the thing is if people have to undergo drug testing to receive HUD housing aid, then that would eliminate drugs in the projects and with it the dealers and the violence.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

Do you want to tell poor people what they can spend their assistance on? (won't work, they already sell their food stamps for cash). Do you want to be their big daddy, who knows best how they should live (like you do?). What is the goal?

The goal is to stop fraud, waste and abuse, and simultaneously motivate people to excel.

You can think of it as "sink or swim."

And yes, I do know best. Buying $80 worth of 40 Ounce Missiles for the adults to drink instead of food for the kids is not in the best interest of the kids.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

Why do you think you can do that to the poor but not to others. Because people of means can fight back?

No, because the poor have nothing to motivate them.

Right now, an 18 year old female with 3 children is living in a nicer apartment than I am. If I would be dictator, no one woman under 35 with children would have her own apartment. She'd have to share with another woman with children. If that doesn't motivate her to get educated and get a job, then nothing will.

I don't have cable television because I can't afford it, but people on welfare do.

Instead of spending $80 - $120/month on cable they need to cancel and buy food.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by Mircea

I'm a Romanian but I was born in the US and have dual citizenship, and unlike you, I'm also a decorated veteran of the US Army.

I'm talking about 100% testing every 6 months with in invasive hair sample.



If there was a "War on Drugs" then why are 100% of the people entering the US searched?

Can't do that? Oh, brother, looks like someone's knowledge of US Supreme Court rulings is just appallingly pathetic.

Anytime the US wants to have a "War on Drugs" it can implement a 100% search of all persons entering the US. Those who do not wish to consent to such a search don't have to do so, but then they can't enter the US.


The goal is to stop fraud, waste and abuse, and simultaneously motivate people to excel.

And yes, I do know best.

Right now, an 18 year old female with 3 children is living in a nicer apartment than I am. If I would be dictator, no one woman under 35 with children would have her own apartment. She'd have to share with another woman with children. If that doesn't motivate her to get educated and get a job, then nothing will.

I don't have cable television because I can't afford it, but people on welfare do.

Well, you do come from a country with a very poor comtemporary history of citizen rights, so that explains a lot.

The fact that 100% of the people coming into America are not searched has more to do with the volume of people than with a lack of desire to search them. To search them all would not only raise the budget for such searches to many times what it is now, but more importantly, would grind international civilian transportation systems to a halt. It's the same problem/issue we have with inspecting every shipping container, not a lack of will, but the enormous logistical problem and cost to international trade as everything backed up at portside.

You are right about that, my country did not call me and I did not serve, but generally I think that was both a win for the people of Vietnam, and a win for me. I don't really see the relevance of our military service, or lack of it, but I'm sure you'll clue me in.

If your goal is to stop fraud, waste and abuse you seem to think a misdirected sledge hammer is the right approach. I say misdirected because I don't think drug use, legal or illegal, is the prime motivator for the fraud behaviour you seek to control.

Don't forget, must of the poor are law abiding citizens just trying to get a long, yet you would subject all of them to repeated and invasive drug testing. Which, if it is not random, but scheduled, would be easy to beat.

I think there are better ways to get rid of fraud, waste and abuse, such as real means testing, to see if they really need the aid, periodic visits to the home (but no more intrusive than any landlord has a right to) to census who is living there, and under what conditions, programs on household budgeting, family planning (if you could get pass the religious anti-planning lobby) and many more programs, that would have more impact. BY not correctly stating the problem, I think you've arrived at an incorrect, and therefore ineffective, solution. But that's just my opinion, and we all have one of those.

So, you live in an apartment not as nice as someone on section 8, and you can't afford cable, but you think you should be the dictator? Illusions of grandeur anyone?

[Chemistry_Guy]

I work at a job where a positive drug test would get me canned. In essence, you could say that my salary is contingent on me passing a drug test. Pretty much anything that I could do that would harm the reputation of my institution could get me fired. I tolerate these things because I like my job, and I don't do anything that would get me fired because I have too much to lose.

The problem with public assistance is that those individuals receiving benefits don't have anything to lose and there are no consequences for bad behavior.

However, I believe there is just as much abuse of unemployment income as welfare, the demographic that takes advantage is just much different. A good friend of mine and his wife are both lawyers, and when his wife lost her job(somewhat voluntarily), she used unemployment as a paid vacation and a time to redecorate their huge house with custom furniture. No one is suggesting a credit card audit (except maybe me!) but I think it is important to make sure that regulations restricting access to government money do not solely target those least able to stick up for themselves.

In summary:
Drug tests for public assistance -- Thumbs up
Asset audit for unemployment -- Thumbs up
Less 'liquid' benefits (food instead of food stamps, debt payment instead of unemployment check, etc) -- Thumbs up

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy

I work at a job where a positive drug test would get me canned. In essence, you could say that my salary is contingent on me passing a drug test. Pretty much anything that I could do that would harm the reputation of my institution could get me fired. I tolerate these things because I like my job, and I don't do anything that would get me fired because I have too much to lose.

The problem with public assistance is that those individuals receiving benefits don't have anything to lose and there are no consequences for bad behavior.

However, I believe there is just as much abuse of unemployment income as welfare, the demographic that takes advantage is just much different. A good friend of mine and his wife are both lawyers, and when his wife lost her job(somewhat voluntarily), she used unemployment as a paid vacation and a time to redecorate their huge house with custom furniture. No one is suggesting a credit card audit (except maybe me!) but I think it is important to make sure that regulations restricting access to government money do not solely target those least able to stick up for themselves.

In summary:
Drug tests for public assistance -- Thumbs up
Asset audit for unemployment -- Thumbs up
Less 'liquid' benefits (food instead of food stamps, debt payment instead of unemployment check, etc) -- Thumbs up

I have never and would never want to work at a job that required drug testing, even though I'm cofident I could pass it even if the test were unannounced. I also work in an environment that is involved in politcal expression and the law, so I feel totally comfortable in expressing my political opinions, and working for political change that the owners of the business might not specifically agree with, although I'm sure they would undersand my right to be involved in the political process, since they are themselves.

You must really like that job if you think it's worth compromising your values. We all have to make some compromises to work for someone else, but I draw the line at peeing in a cup, or shutting my mouth outside of work. At work I know it's best not to talk about politics, religion, etc. but outside of work my time and opinions are mine alone. Fortunately I am not so associated with the company I work for that anyone would think my opinions somehow reflect positively or negatively on my employer or that my opinions are somehw endorsed by my employer. I am a person, I am not a job description.

People on public assistance have something to lose alright, like the roof over their head and the food they eat, if they don't comply with the existing rules and get caught. The biggest frauds and waste exist because enforcement is lax and the staff is inadequate for the task.

Unemployment income is very different than welfare. Unemployment is a system that wage earners pay into when they are working and draw on when they are not. It is not a government handout as welfare is, and it's basis is work and how much you earned, not how much some guideline says you need. Still, you are supposed to be actively looking for work, so what this women did was clearly a vilolation of the rules and a fraud against the system. A combination of lax enforcement (on the part ogf government) and poor moral/ethical values (on her part).

I do agree that food stamps are a bad idea and that a food dispensory, like private charities run, would be a much better model to get food into the hands of the poor and reduce fraud and the resale of food stamps for cash. Why the private sector model has not been adopted by government is beyond me. Likely it has something to do with a corporate food lobby wanting to get that "money".

An asset audit periodically to requalify for public assistance would also help to ensure that we are really funding folks that need a hand and not those "working the system"

Since only 3 percent of the population in public housing (according to one study in the Mid West) are actually using hard drugs, which generally don't persist in the body more than two or three days, and since legal drugs, like alcohol are far more distructive to the poor, I don't think drug testing would be cost effective, but I would be for incentive based alcohol education and treatment programs for those in public housing, and incentive based anti-smoking programs too.

But beyond education programs, I'm not willing to dictate how others should live, although I can see there are plenty of superior people here that are willing to do just that, especially for THOSE PEOPLE.

[amy1976]

I feel that drug tests should be given to those who receive assistance. I personally know a few people that use their monies for purchasing marijuana...so wrong!

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by amy1976

I feel that drug tests should be given to those who receive assistance. I personally know a few people that use their monies for purchasing marijuana...so wrong!

I'm sure you would, since you are one of that group that feels they have a right to determine OTHERS lives. Tell us Amy, is it only marijuana use that you object to, or do you have a list of things poor people (not you of course) shouldn't do? Poor people tend to smoke tobacco more than the wealthier folks, how about that? How far are you willing to go to enforce your beliefs on these OTHERS?

Have you always felt superior to those less well off than yourself, or is this a recent development? Maybe you would consider getting a dog, or two. They will take your direction and love you for it.

I don't think you'd get the same response from the projects just down the street from me, but I'd love to listen in while you tell the folks there what you think they should be doing.

By the way, why is marijuana so wrong? Is alcohol and tobacco so much better? They buy a lot more of that. How about gambling? The poor buy more lottery tickets than any other demographic.

Did you know that poor people have sex while on assistance??, and statistically this happens a lot when they are not married (oh my!). And they make babies that you have to pay for. Maybe they should be "fixed". What do you think?

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

I do agree that food stamps are a bad idea and that a food dispensory, like private charities run, would be a much better model to get food into the hands of the poor and reduce fraud and the resale of food stamps for cash.

Food stamps use the existing food distribution system (grocery stores).

To set up food distribution model using private charities, someone is going to have to be responsible ($$$) for: a) buying and delivering the food to the charity; and b) paying the workers at the charities to receive and distribute the food, assess the need of the clients receiving the food, and track the food as it is distributed; c) storage space for the food, including refrigeration and freezer space; d) food handling training for anyone working at the sites.

I'm sure I'm missing an expense somewhere along the line.

This may cost federal and respective state governments more money than plain ol' food stamp fraud. People who work for nonprofit organizations may work for peanuts, but they don't work for free.

And before someone says "Why not have the public assistance recipients do all that in exchange for their food?", those public assistance recipients would have to be trained and supervised.

And before someone says "Wouldn't private donations pay for the costs of food distribution?", the answer is ... no.

[pitt_transplant]

I think it would be a good idea. But drinking can wreck a life just as much as the legal stuff so, its not really a solution. They need to bring home the jobs that these people can do like manufacturing assembly etc. They also need to be having more jobs here that 1 income can support a family without an expensive education.

[Faworki1947]

I think testing should be done .. after all I am required to be tested to get a job .. why should this handout be any diffrent? Yep test even for food stamps .. Theres many good folks who dont use drugs and get help and are greatfull to get the help .. A drug test would benefit them as well .. more food stamps for their familys cause we arent feeding the deadbeats ..
NO I do NOT care if the druggies kids suffer due to the parents stupitity .. If you love your kids enough to beg for food asstance you will love them enough to stay clean ..
drugs are illegal what part of that do you not understand?

[Nevar242]

With respect, you want a free ride, play by the rules.