Drug Testing for welfare recipients
 

What say you?


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090326/D975MFE80.html

States consider drug tests for welfare recipients
Mar 26, 7:32 AM (ET)
By TOM BREEN

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.
Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Craig Blair: "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

Sounds like a fine idea to me. Welfare is meant to be something to tie you over during bad times, not something to be a way of life. Taking drugs is going to hurt a person's ability to get back on her feet so it seems logical.

It's about damn time!!!!! And make them get on birth control or tie their tubes!!!

I know someone on welfare. She's had a few jobs and walked out.(fast food) She has a few. It's not our fault that you're lazy. Why should we have to pay for people like this?

We do offer low cost (<$5 ) or free birth control to people who are on Medicaid. Family planning is also offered to women who have given birth while on Medicaid. GYN visits, prescription for BC and sterilization options are offered. The father can also apply for family planning as well.

I agree in theory, but how would they be tested? If Mom tests positive for drugs and she is the head of household, does that mean the kids dont get benefits either? And if they slip up, then they lose their benefits and they end up on the street, doing what? If they are addicted, do they get help? (b/c according to policy, if you are in a residential facility for >30 days, you can't get any assistance.)

sexist....LOL :D

I oppose this measure, it will only make things worse for everyone in those communities, will add to the already sky-high costs of some of these programs, adding extra staff, etc.

Kevin, you have a good point, but I don't really think that adding more government programs on top of government programs that have already been "tweaked" by just about every congress since they began, will work to help fix said government programs. It just seems like more red tape that eventually people will find loopholes in/their way around.

I think the reason why I am 'for' it (altho I am interested in the details) is that i have personally have seen and dealt with clients and neighbors who had deep ties with drugs where if they weren't selling, they were using or whose kids were deeply involved as the drug trade was a supplemental income.

In some places, there are rules that more or less state that if a Section 8 residence has X amount of police calls due to drug activity, they can be evicted.

It'll save money on the one hand because you're right, folks will be turned away. On the other, it'll probably result in more crime and more homelessness as people aren't going to let themselves starve or go cold turkey.

It all depends on what you think welfare should be -- a hand up or a means to keep the poor fat dumb and happy. I think it should be the former. Further, I think this policy could really work if we were to adopt a Netherlands-style drug policy.

Kevin: I agree with you on the second part of your post. I say tax the drugs, make small dosages legal and keep it moving.

Welfare was supposed to be a temporary stop gap for families in between jobs. Somehow it morphed into this generational thing. The reform that occurred in 1996 attempted to stop that, to varying degrees of success. What it's supposed to be and what I see every day don't match up. :(

Do away with welfare. Problem solved.

Ain't happening...get over it.

I am all for the drug testing, but I am curious as to how many slack parents would rather stay on the drugs than feed/provide for their children...

I think that this could be pretty positive, just because less people would recieve aid. Perhaps it will help people in bad situations realize they need to get clean. If you're too far gone on crack, heroin, meth, then you're too far gone. Plain and simple. But its an incentive to get clean for a lot of people I should hope. I mean, the war on drugs what did it really do?

I do agree with a lot of comments.... how meny parents would give up drugs? But again, if you're too far gone/two selfish, you don't get any sympathy from me. And for that i'll pull the arugument, you can get tested so my taxes don't go toward your drug addiction.

If you need assistance for a few months, you make an effort, you cut back, stop going out to eat, and are activly looking for a new job, then i'll try to help, and i'm for you getting you aid. But again, i wont pay for your drug addiction.

Drug testing, I am for. Required contraception, I am very strongly against.

I find this incredibly annoying. Make who get on birth control? And of course because you know someone that makes all of "them" lazy.
Yup it was! ;):D
^ I agree. I think that it will just wind up being a waste of money. Money that could be put to much better use.

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!

But don't we put restrictions on other people seeking public assistance? For instance, if you're applying for federal student loans, they can look into your criminal history.

I don't think it's treating these people as "second class citizens," as much as it's ensuring that the money is going to the right places.

Just throwing it out there, but maybe if they do test positive for drugs, future benefits are conditioned upon completion of a recovery program?

The birth control aspect is offered to men as well, FWIW. This economy has really humbled some people who thought they were too "good" for public assistance. I had ideas of what my clients would be like when I started working here, but I was proven wrong. A small minority of my clients would fit the "welfare stereotype".

If a person has been convicted of distributing drugs, they are not eligible for assistance for 10 years or life, I cant remember which. The policy used to be possession or distribution, but now its just distribution. That JUST changed.

ETA: Food stamps are supposed to supplement a family's food budget. Too many rely on it to be their only provision for food, and have no idea how they've used up their monthly benefits by the 10th of the month. They are supposed to purchase only food products with it (can't use them to pay for already prepared items, like the rotisserie chicken), but people and stores find ways around it.

Welfare has been rebranded. (As of August 22, 1996, don't ask how I know this date, lol!) These are not "welfare" programs, they are public assistance. Food Stamps are now SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I think we need to make people who receive assistance more accountable for proving HOW, if at all, they are trying to better their situation. There are too many people who are content to sit back and let the state take care of them and their children, but get beligerent when I need them to verify how they are paying for their expenses when they have no income. "Ms Nikki1920, why are you all in my business? Why do you need to know that?" EYE don't need to know anything, but you came in here, said you needed assistance and I need some information to determine how much, if any, assistance you are entitled to receive. If you don't want to give me the info, there is the door and have a great day.

Exactly. If you can't make your own money because you fail your drug tests and aren't hired, then don't take my tax money. I have no problem whatsoever with welfare recipients having to pass drug tests.

@ bolded:
really? I dont get it. To me all people on welfare are welfare recipients and all welfare recipients are people on welfare.
@ underlined:
That was my point. Most of the people who complain about welfare base their complaints on the people they know or the people they've seen which is unrealisitc. Did DS see every woman who got a check on the first in his shoe store? No. Were most of the women he saw druggies? Probably not. So is it realistic to say that because he worked in that shoe store and dealt with those few women that this is how most/all welfare recipients are? No.

I swear some people act like welfare is a damn prize. Most people on welfare would rather not have it. There are many more issues with welfare than just the person's personal issues. Anyone ever think of the fact that if you are on welfare and you get a job (working for minimum wage) then the amount of welfare you get is decreased by such sufficient amounts that it at a point becomes less efficient for you to work. If a person works min. wage jobs they cannot make enough to support themselves far less themselves and children. When the welfare you're getting is worth more than you can make working what do you do? Keep working until ish hits the fan and you wind up on welfare again or quit working and keep welfare? Economics will tell you that each person acts in their own best interest to maximize utility, thus a person with any sense would quit working and remain on welfare. Why? Its the best option. This senario is created by the dumbass policies that we currently have regarding welfare. Some people get outraged about welfare recipients dependency on the system, but they are not outraged about living wage issues and the policies that make welfare a cripling and dependent system.

So, dont waste money trying to root out druggies which are the minority in the system. Reform the system to subsidize low wage workers and provide education and training so that workers can increase their utility and earn a wage that will enable them to care for themselves and their families.

This is demonstrably false using the definition of "utility" that you're alluding to.

Why is it either/or?

Could you explain what you mean by the definition of utility being false?

What is either/or? I didnt mention either/or. The words arent even in there so im a little :confused: by your question.

You posted: "So, dont waste money trying to root out druggies which are the minority in the system. Reform the system to subsidize low wage workers and provide education and training so that workers can increase their utility and earn a wage that will enable them to care for themselves and their families."

That made it seem like a choice - either you "root out druggies" or you reform the system, but that you couldn't do both. It seemed like RC's post was wondering why you couldn't try to do both.

I would think that "rooting out druggies" IS a type of reformation.

SCHEEEECH!!! hehehehe!!

Most of the bamas on welfare couldn't give a kitty about regular school, what makes ya think they are gonna care about budgeting class?

HA!

...continue...

@ bolded:
No it didnt. The underlined portion of your post seems like a choice. I was quite clear. "DON'T waste money trying to root out druggies." What choice is there? If I say dont turn left does that mean either turn left or keep straight? No, it means Do NOT turn left. No option there.