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.
You are against drug tests for people on welfare. Explain.
I'm not stupid, I know they're not. Show me where I said that.
I'm against TAX PAYER funded drug tests.
How cheap do you think testing Millions of people every month is?
And if you want to do a "basic" urine test I hope your aware Cocaine and other hard drugs only stay in the system 3-4 days...making them very ineffective at catching even the people that are using the drugs....making the whole program worthless.
First of all, urine tests are very cheap. Second of all, I'm willing to bet we'd save more than we'd spend. Third of all, but we'd push people to stop using drugs and/or get off of welfare. It's unfathomable to me how anyone could object to this.
You would save NOTHING.
How hard is it for me to stop snorting coke for 2 days before a drug test If I want a welfare check and I am a drug user? Then I pass and get the check and go right back to it.
If you have 5 or more children then you must agree to sterilization for any further money.
If you don't like this...then GET A JOB!!
(It would be great if Obama gave a speech declaring this!)
What would Jesus do if someone needed help? Would he drug test even if there was no reason to believe someone was using drugs, like with the elderly and disabled on welfare or the children who make up most of the individuals on welfare? Or would he decide it was a total waste of tax payer dollars?
How cheap do you think testing Millions of people every month is?
And if you want to do a "basic" urine test I hope your aware Cocaine and other hard drugs only stay in the system 3-4 days...making them very ineffective at catching even the people that are using the drugs....making the whole program worthless.
Then make the recipients pay for the tests. Marijuana is much more likely than cocaine also. Obviously it can't be 100% effective, nothing is. This is not perfect, but it's taking a stand and making a start to cut out the leeches that plague the system.
What would Jesus do if someone needed help? Would he drug test even if there was no reason to believe someone was using drugs, like with the elderly and disabled on welfare or the children who make up most of the individuals on welfare?
Jesus would help those that needed and deserved the help. Jesus would be sick if he saw how much opportunity people have here and yet they decide to waste it.
Then make the recipients pay for the tests. Marijuana is much more likely than cocaine also. Obviously it can't be 100% effective, nothing is. This is not perfect, but it's taking a stand and making a start to cut out the leeches that plague the system.
Id agree with that.
A ONE TIME urine test to start benefits is reasonable. Provided its not on the Tax-Payer dime.
A ONE TIME urine test to start benefits is reasonable. Provided its not on the Tax-Payer dime.
But they could easily skip that and get welfare for 5 years while high. I understand your point, but something has to be done and while of course this isn't perfect I think it's a start. Maybe random testing would be better, I don't know. But anything is better than nothing IMO.
Think about it, let's say $500 in benefits vs a $10 urine test (could be a little higher but it's not much more). If only 1 in 50 people failed, we'd break even.
But they could easily skip that and get welfare for 5 years while high. I understand your point, but something has to be done and while of course this isn't perfect I think it's a start. Maybe random testing would be better, I don't know. But anything is better than nothing IMO.
Think about it, let's say $500 in benefits vs a $10 urine test (could be a little higher but it's not much more). If only 1 in 50 people failed, we'd break even.
You forgot about the 65K a year government bureaucrat who would be hired to look at that 10$ sample.
I'm for the drug test at the beginning, also maybe random tests amounting to 10% of the total people on it a year seems like a good benefit since most people would be too scared to risk it. Anything higher and I think the costs would be outrageous.
You forgot about the 65K a year government bureaucrat who would be hired to look at that 10$ sample.
Yes but if you divide that up among the tests the cost per test would be minimal. Even if this weren't 100% cost effective immediately I would still be for it in theory, just for the principle of it and the fact that it would probably pay for itself in the long run if not right away.
You also have to consider that if it gets people off of drugs, that saves us money indirectly in law enforcement, future health care costs, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDirector
I'm for the drug test at the beginning, also maybe random tests amounting to 10% of the total people on it a year seems like a good benefit since most people would be too scared to risk it. Anything higher and I think the costs would be outrageous.
Random may be best. We could encourage people to snitch each other out
How cheap do you think testing Millions of people every month is?
And if you want to do a "basic" urine test I hope your aware Cocaine and other hard drugs only stay in the system 3-4 days...making them very ineffective at catching even the people that are using the drugs....making the whole program worthless.
.......... funny. We use urine drug tests every day and find MANY cocaine and meth addicts. Cocaine and meth will be present in the urine 3-4 days after use. Pot will be present in the urine for up to 30 days. In contrast to meth, there are very few false positives with cocaine. Further, by the addictive nature of these drugs, the people using them WILL BE CAUGHT at some point. We discover them eventually.
How much does a UDS cost? It depends upon the assay and where it is done. More extensive assays can be used to detect synthetic and semisythetic narcotics, while detecting derivatives of morphine and codeine is very cheap. Detection of meth and cocaine is cheap. The "quick and dirty" drug assays we use cost about $75. The cost passed on to the patient and the insurer is much higher. More extensive assays looking for synthetic narcotics are only necessary in most instances if the patient is prescribed these drugs. Believe it or not, junkies like cheaper drugs.
Should welfare recipients be screened? Of course. Liberals, of course, will oppose any measures, as it is good common sense. When ever one evaluates a situation, determine what makes the most sense, do the opposite, and you have arrived at the liberal position.
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.
