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.
Drug screen is actually rather cheap. Take it out of the money that would have gone to their welfare check. How is that for a solution?
Where I live an ETG test for alcohol is $10, and a 5-panel drug screen which tests for THC, opiates, cocaine, meth and other amphedimenes, costs $10. So all together the test comes out to $20. Which on the surface doesn't sound like much. But how frequent should we test them? If we test monthly they will know that after their monthly test they will be able to use most drugs fairly frequently as long as they stop a few days before the end of the month. If you test them weekly, the same applies, "I got tested on Monday so I will binge on meth until Thursday night and be clean on Sunday." Testing more frequently than that and you start looking at costs close to $160 a month. For someone who is already struggling by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be recieving benefits, that is a lot of money. So for someone who is clean that is pretty unfair. At one point I was getting tested twice a week, at $20 bucks a pop, and it was a huge strain on the pocket book.
What would be the purpose of a drug test? Would you also test for other things such as sugar? Consumption of soft drinks? Consumption of fast foods? Or is it just the things that YOU don't like?
It's not about what I don't like... I'm not the rulemaker, it was just a question... Seems like a lot of people are getting handouts without much real oversight... It's frustrating to lots of us who work very hard just to scrape by without taking handouts so we don't burden anyone else.
The cost would be more than offset by savings when the stoners and junkies stop getting that monthly check.
Unemployment payments are meant to tide one through while another job is found. It is not meant to provide income while smoking crack instead of finding one.
So you don't care if we raise your taxes to pay for it?
How about the kids of these unfit knit-wits? What do you suggest we do with them.
This gets far deeper than just drug testing & kicking those off who test positive.
We all know what it is NOT meant for, so some people are idiots but, what exactly would happen to the babies & children of these people if we just stop their checks? Or doesn't that matter anymore?
That's another good point. Personally I have a lot of good friends that smoke marijuana regularly and are good, hardworking, productive people who pay taxes. I refrain due to the line of work I'm in, but that doesn't mean I am against it. I have a occasional drink and even the occasional cigarette from time to time... The reason for the poll and post was to gather some ideas on how to help the system work better. I agree that we have too many laws, especially the laws made for special interests that may only affect 1% or less of the population.. Someone has an emotional reaction to something and next thing you know they are lobbying to restrict everyone else who might actually be responsible people that use common sense. (However uncommon it might seem)..
How many people use common sense vs. the ones that abuse the system... I've got a feeling that a poll like that would be tainted..
The "million worker march," where workers protested that since they need top pass a drug test to get a job or join the military, why shouldn't those on welfare? It was not televised due to the unusual way they protested (Apologies to Financial columnist Scott Burns).
I posted this on another thread so I'll just copy and paste (hopefully the mods won't delete it for being a crosspost:
It would come out of their check. It's the price of doing business with the gov't.
[I was asked if I'm FOR bigger gov't]
In this case, yes, if you want to receive a handout, you pay the price. It's like how on your driver's license it says that by holding the license, you automatically consent to a sobriety test; the same would apply to those on welfare.
I'm for testing that averages monthly but they have to be relatively random or else people will clean up for a few days (weed aside) and/or prepare to fake it. Pee tests are best, and of course they have to be done at an office, not at home, that's a dumb idea. The cleaning kits aren't worth jack. They get 24 hours' notice and they have to report to an office on time or else they lose benefits. If you're late once, okay, unless you're more than 15 minutes late, in which case you're done immediately. If you're late twice, you're done. If you test positive for anything whatsoever, you're done, unless you have a valid prescription and doctor's note for opiate use. No one at the methadone clinic can obtain welfare, as many people get off heroin just to get addicted to methadone; if you're addicted to pills, no welfare. If you give the workers at the drug testing office any attitude or threaten them, you're done. If they catch you trying to fake it, you're done.
I'm all for making it a pain in the rear to get any type of welfare, UE after 26 weeks and disability included.
Why stop there? There was already a thread about limiting what kind of food you should be able to buy using food stamps that many people were on board with. Why not just make them do whatever WE want them to do before getting any benefits? Could be fun...
Good point. An ETG test for alcohol is accurate up to 72 hours, I've passed with about 14 hours.
I have no personal experience for meth but have done a little research on this topic before, meth shows up for a couple days, cocaine can pass your system in an hour unless, you use constantly then is about 24 hours. Opiates including pills and heroin last around 48 hours in your system.
Marijuana is the killer as it can stick around up to 30 days, but if use is infrequent it can also pass in about 24 hours.
If your drug of choice is LSD or Mushrooms, congratulations, there is no test. Unless they want to dig through your stool a day after ingesting mushrooms, or give you a spinal tap to check for acid.
This is a good point. However, I think the main priority is weeding out the chronic users (no pun intended there ). If someone does something every now and then, I don't really care too much. But if they are addicted and spending their welfare money on drugs, or if they are on welfare b/c they're an addict and don't work, that is what I have a problem with. In all honesty, meth, coke, heroin and any opiates like pills are addictive, I doubt someone is going to be able to pass a drug test if they are abusing any of those, even if they abstain for 24 hours before the pee test. The biggest issue is alcohol, since that clears the system so quickly. But again, heavy drinkers may still have a problem passing a drug test if they can't control themselves for 24 hours before the test. The staff at the drug testing office should also be trained to look for withdrawal symptoms.
I don't think LSD or shrooms are the biggest problems among welfare recipients so I would be okay with skipping those. Hair tests can detect those, at least it can detect LSD, from what I understand.
I honestly think using someone else's pee is a problem that isn't too common b/c it's easy to figure out what the person is doing. I've taken drug tests for work and the worker stands right outside the stall and listens and watches your feet. If they detect anything suspicious, if you flush even, they make you retake it. I accidentally flushed out of habit before they checked the stall and had to go next door, grab a soda and try again in an hour. LOL Using those cleaner things doesn't really guarantee clean results, either, nor do any of the old wives' tales like drinking a gallon of water to dilute your urine.
No way. The Drug War has given the government FAR too much power already.
There's a big difference between unemployment insurance, which is an insurance system paid for by workers and employers, and welfare, which is the catch-all for every non-productive person--whether unlucky or lazy and lacking in work ethic. It's insane for insurance to start eliminating benefits bases on whether the recipient is a paragon of virtue or not. As for welfare, I'm not a big fan at all, but it already costs too much. Let it be very limited in scope and time.
Of course, due to the extreme cost imposed on the taxpayer by someone on welfare having children, I support very strong incentives for sterilization (or provable dependable birth control) of those who cannot support even themselves, since they are truly "abusing the system." After working in government, I know that for every 1 deserving person, there are 1,000 who are just using the system to line their pockets. The abuse is so rampant that I have come to believe that the government should get out of the "charity" business entirely, since it actually WANTS to give away as much taxpayer money as possible. If charity was left to religion and non-profits, abuse would be a fraction of what it is now, and there would be enough money to take care of the truly needed instead of supporting cities worth of scam artists that use their "disadvantaged" background to cash in on the "free money" our representatives are so quick to give away.
I agree with the Drug War stuff. I suppose our other option would be to legalize it and then collect taxes off of it to pay for the welfare folk perhaps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679
Marijuana, alcohol and nicotine excluded...
I would assume the first two would be included and I'd like to throw my support behind adding nicotine to the list. Many welfare people smoke and cigs cost upward of $5 a pack now. That pack a day habit adds up for sure. Why should the taxpayers subsidize that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyu
Drug screen is actually rather cheap. Take it out of the money that would have gone to their welfare check. How is that for a solution?
Agreed. Make them pay for it. I said earlier that that's the price of doing business with the gov't.
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.
). If someone does something every now and then, I don't really care too much. But if they are addicted and spending their welfare money on drugs, or if they are on welfare b/c they're an addict and don't work, that is what I have a problem with. In all honesty, meth, coke, heroin and any opiates like pills are addictive, I doubt someone is going to be able to pass a drug test if they are abusing any of those, even if they abstain for 24 hours before the pee test. The biggest issue is alcohol, since that clears the system so quickly. But again, heavy drinkers may still have a problem passing a drug test if they can't control themselves for 24 hours before the test. The staff at the drug testing office should also be trained to look for withdrawal symptoms.
