BUT! if in the end we save money by not giving it to the mass amounts of druggies....

It is not likely that we will, in the end, save money but cutting all the druggies out of welfare. I think there's a very large misconception that the majority of people on welfare are abusing it. Not true. And to be honest how many strung out druggies are coherent enough to continue to meet the requirements to get welfare? If you're strung out then it is not very likely that you're up on your paper work or doing what you're supposed to to get your money. Hell most druggies are so far gone that they barely remember to get the damn check out of the mail box. The only people that this could possibly hurt is the children. Parents get taken off of welfare because they're irresponsible then the little bit of funds that the kids were getting disappears, but the need that the kids have does not.

^^I agree, I think it punishes people (children and other dependents) who really aren't the ones that should be.

And, time out, I think missed something....are these state law-makers calling for state-reform? Or delegations from 8 states calling for Federal reform? because, from the way I read it, it seemed like state-lawmakers were calling for Federal reform.

The lazy person I was talking about is the person I know... who is lazy and doesn't want to work.

I'm sick of hearing about people on welfare popping out baby after baby (sometimes multiple fathers) and they just end up getting more money. They don't care about having safe sex or trying to get on their feet before bringing another baby into this world.

And when I say "people on welfare" I don't mean all welfare recipients.

What percentage of druggies are even on welfare? Will a law like this REALLY give the impact (reduced cost) that we think? I don't think so. In fact, like others have stated, I think it will just hurt children most of all.

Granted, this type of law is good for publicity, but that's about it. This isn't an impactful welfare reform and lawmakers need to go back to the drawing board.

Is it possible, that that something like this could change the way a percentage of people look at welfare and unemployment? I think so.

There are lots of types of unemployment, and lots of ways that people can get it. There are plenty of people using welfare/unemployment the way it was intended... to help for a few months getting from one job, to the next. but there are lots of people all over the place, in the city, in the suburbs, that are using it for their own greed.

This is an experience my friend had in his 5 years at K-mart in a Detroit suburb...
"what really bugged me was when I was ringing people up, the sheer number of customers who would use their food stamps to buy milk, bread, eggs and all the staple food items. But then they would buy a $300.00 fishing pole, or $500.00 worth of video games and consoles, or a $1,000 TV. but when it came to paying for the TV they'd pull a huge wad of $100.00 bills out of their coat pocket, or purse and act like it was nothing to carry around 1,000's of dollars in bills. I would see the same people all the time, and there were so many that did that..... now try to tell me they aren't doing and dealing drugs!"


I'm sorry to sound selfish ... or unsympathetic.... but why should I, a law abiding citizen... give my well earned money to someone who breaks the law with drugs time and time again?? I'm pretty broke, putting myself though college with some help from my parents. I would love to help those that need help, but they gotta be law abiding before I give a rats ass about their drug problems. My taxes aren't going toward buying their drugs, that's just bull.

Let me add to that (because when I was in undergrad I worked in a shoe store so 1st of the month <Mother's Day as we called it> was always our busiest of course!) by saying these same few individuals who would drop dollars on these expensive items are the same ones living in subsidized housing with rent and bills under $100 dollars and WON'T pay them and before you know it, are getting evicted!

I mean come on if you live in a house and all you have to pay is 20 bucks for rent, how the HELL do you fall behind on that???????

If you owe 10 dollars on your Gas and Electric bill, how do you let that slide for 5 months and wonder why your lights are out?

Hmm. I am torn on this one. My babysitter recieves some government aid- mainly food stamps and heath insurance through a State of Indiana program. I have to say, she is a great mom, both to her own daughter and my sons (otherwise she would be watching them). However, I was sometimes surprised by some of her purchasing decisions.
I started mentoring her about a year ago and we actually went over some of the bigger issues- such at buying $200 shoes instead of paying the rent. I think she just needed some guidance. Someone to say "what the h*ll?" on some purchases and to help her make a budget. Now she clips coupons, buys store brands if they are comparable and cheaper, and has saved up enough for a new to her car. And she sees the results- while wearing $45 shoes!
As for the drug screens, I don't have a huge problem with it- it would keep lab staff employed- however I wonder how often they would need this. If it is a working poor, then taking off work to take a monthly drug test would be a hardship.

She is one of a rare few.

I had a client who was about to get evicted. She was crying and upset and carrying on. When I finally got her calmed down enough to tell me how much her back rent was, I wanted to throttle her. 2 years back rent? $24.

A lot of my clients don't know how to budget (hell, I really don't either, but I know that rent comes first), but will show up in the latest fashions, the latest phone but swear up and down that they are broke. THAT is what bothers the hell out of me.

24 bucks?

Dayum what i got in my pocket right now would set her up for the next 3 years....sheesh.

SHoulda made her take a urine test to ask what she was smokin' to understand why she was stressing over 25 bucks...LOL

Yep. $2 a month rent. AND SHE WAS LATE!!

Well, we know that proper budgeting is an issue with ALL Americans, so why would it not be an issue with those who accept welfare benefits? I'm sure for a lot of people, being irresponsible with money is all they have either seen or known. Make people take those courses (budgeting, food shopping) as apart of the benefit. Shoot, just like WIC has a pre-approved list of items you can buy, why not put those same restrictions on food stamp cards?

I think for me, the issue is just because these people are poor and using public assistance, doesn't mean that we can treat them as second class citizens. Today is drug testing, tomorrow it may be birth control (and probably just a requirement for women only), and who knows - even random searches of their homes.

I really do think it is case of a few bad apples that spoil the bunch (and a case of lawmakers trying to appear that they are being responsible with tax money...pffftttt).

How much will random drug testing really cost?

We don't get pissed at random drug testing for government jobs, yet we're going to decry an already-inefficient system for adding a layer that may or may not pay for itself in reduced services? Really?

The only argument that seems really convincing to me in this thread is the potential for punishing children or families by punishing the drug user. However, that's already an endemic flaw in the system, and we can't be specifically sure that the money is going there now (or what percentage). It does seem somewhat inconsistent to argue that the cost of the testing would dwarf anything saved, then turn around and say that you're depriving money from children who didn't do anything wrong - if the former is true the latter is minuscule, right?

The "re-branding" of welfare might actually be a solid component, but that's not really a tangible benefit, and we can guess (from other sources) that the lack of welfare funds will be only a minor deterrent (if any at all) to drug use.

Hear hear!