Program Pays Addicts to Use Birth Control

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by FeeFee

I have a problem with those who receive welfare and have no plans to make any attempts to remove themselves from the system. I've seen too many people where I grew up at receive Public Assitance, continue to have children, yet you could not convince them to get and education (not even a frigging GED) or receive job training (which more than likely will be at no cost to them). They are too busy trying to look fly and hang out at the club on the weekend. Those are the people that piss me off, not college students receiving aid - at least we can assume that a college graduate wants to become a productive member of society.

FeeFee,

I totally feel you on this. I really do. I know some folks stay on welfare for YEARS, but instead of drug testing, how about implementing time or assistance limits. I know a lot of states have istituted welfare programs that tell people, you have X amount of years to receive assistance and after that....IT'S OVER. To me, something of that nature would be more effective.
I honestly do not think that drug testing is the way to go to get people off of public assistance.

If anything, for those that do test positive, they should be placed into some type of treatment center, and not just cast aside on street.

To everyone:

Dsuchlady brought up the point that everyone should be tested for drugs if you receive ANY type of public assistance and I actually would agree with her on this. I know WAY more college students that smoke weed or try to BLING BLING, using the money from their refund check. Imagine the money we could save if every college student on financial aid was drug tested!
Granted, you go to college with the expectation of becoming a contributing member of society, but welfare was created to do the same thing. ANY type of public assistance was created to be a bridge, a boost, hand-up, or just a temporary fix to a bad situation. Welfare was orginally created for people to better themselve and become contributing members of society too.
Not that I am against drug testing, I just feel like you are punishing the wrong people. More folks are on welfare not because they are drug abusers, but because that is all they know.

I think this welfare discussion is leading into a new topic (or for me anyway). Why do some people want to better themselves and some don't? Is there a bigger issue at hand?

[Love_Spell_6]

Here's some background for those new to this issue:

Michigan to begin drug testing of welfare recipients
By Larry Roberts
3 July 1999
Use this version to print

The state of Michigan announced Thursday it will be the first in the United States to require drug testing for those applying for welfare benefits. Officials from the State Family Independence Agency (FIA) announced that testing will begin in five districts in the state, including impoverished areas in Detroit.

The new measure, signed into law earlier this year, will require applicants under 65 years of age to take a drug test or forfeit their chance for benefits. The state will also randomly test those already receiving benefits in the targeted districts. According to the FIA, testing will be extended statewide by 2003.

Applicants who fail a test will be required to take a second one. If they fail again they will be compelled to get treatment. Those who refuse treatment will be cut off within four months.

Opponents have pointed out that the measure is a violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure. “The state is starting from the assumption that the poor are criminals,” said Kary Moss, an official of the Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which plans to challenge the law. “The state is saying that if you want money for food and shelter you have to give up the Fourth Amendment rights that others have.”

Earlier in the year Michigan's legislature mandated the checking of welfare recipients' fingerprints, allegedly to prevent fraud. Sharon Parks, senior research associate for the Michigan League of Human Services, said “people are not going to want to come to the welfare office for services of any kind.” Other critics have said drug testing could lead to some parents losing custody of their children.

Michigan officials have made little attempt to conceal their aim of driving the remaining welfare recipients off the benefit rolls. Governor John Engler said, “Drugs are a barrier to employment. These pilots are consistent with our goal to help welfare recipients become truly independent from the welfare system.” He might have added that the new program would also help the poor become “independent” of food, shelter and other basic necessities.

Spearheaded by the Republican governor, whose efforts have been praised by President Clinton, Michigan has established itself as one of the leaders in the attack on welfare. Michigan has had a 60 percent drop in welfare caseloads since 1992, from 225,359 to 89,866. The state has established a “Project Zero” plan, aimed at stopping all welfare payments in selected districts.

Many states have considered drug-testing programs for welfare recipients but have delayed because of opposition by civil libertarians, social workers and advocates for the poor. Florida tests applicants when it claims there is a reasonable suspicion of drug use. Four states—New Jersey, Minnesota, South Carolina and Wisconsin—carry out random drug test of welfare recipients with felony drug convictions.

Here's the site if you're interested:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/wel-j03.shtml

[Honeykiss1974]

Thanks for posting this article. However, I can help but feel that there is some type of alterior motive involved (besides the claim of reducing welfare recipients). Especially after reading that currently, those test are administer in "target districts". Yeah, I wonder who's district.

Sorry guys, after reading that article, it really puts a bad taste in my mouth.

[CrimsonTide4]

This appears to be a very lively thread, but Love_Spell there was no need for you to take it to a personal level first.

DSuchALady stated her opinion and then you questioned her college education and now want her to be an adult about the situation.

[dsuchalady]

Thank You CrimsonTide I appreciate your objectiveness and your ability to see that I really meant no harm but ya know how that goes...

HoneyKiss I agree with you totally...after reading that article one begins to wonder the TRUE motive behind drug testing. "Target Districts"

FeeFee I also see where you are coming from. There are LOTS of people who abuse public aid. Though one would hope that all students in college are there to be productive, realistically you know..lol

Don't get me wrong I am for WORK STUDY..heck I wouldn't be able to cover my expenses without it but I am more for equality, make things fair and just before they are enacted.

[Dionysus]

Originally posted by FeeFee

P.S. - Does this mean that I have latent Republican tendencies too?

I guess this makes me three.

Anyways, I have no problem w/ the drug testing. That will just mean that more people will be disqualified for it, making it easier for people who do qualify.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by CrimsonTide4
This appears to be a very lively thread, but Love_Spell there was no need for you to take it to a personal level first.

DSuchALady stated her opinion and then you questioned her college education and now want her to be an adult about the situation.

OK...can we talk about the thread now. ...

CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Thanks for posting this article. However, I can help but feel that there is some type of alterior motive involved (besides the claim of reducing welfare recipients). Especially after reading that currently, those test are administer in "target districts". Yeah, I wonder who's district.

Sorry guys, after reading that article, it really puts a bad taste in my mouth.

What do you think the alterior motive is Honeykiss? Like certain individuals are being targeted? Do you feel like this is aimed at African Americans??

I'm interested to know what you think..

[Love_Spell_6]

Here's another article Honeykiss... from the ACLU. It's another perspective. Is this where you're coming from?

Michigan ACLU Seeks Halt to Nation’s First Mandatory Welfare Drug Testing Program


DETROIT—Saying that Michigan’s poorest families should not be treated like criminals, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today filed a federal class-action lawsuit to halt the nation’s first statewide drug testing requirement for welfare recipients.

"Mandatory drug testing of a broad swath of the adult population has never in our nation’s history been proposed or enacted by a state government, much less approved by a court," the ACLU said in its complaint. A constitutional ban on Michigan’s program, due to go into effect on October 1, could send a strong warning to other states, the ACLU said.

The ACLU filed its class-action lawsuit on behalf of all Michigan welfare recipients, including named plaintiffs Tanya L. Marchwinski and Terri J. Konieczny, both single mothers on welfare, and Westside Mothers, a 300-member advocacy organization created for and by families in need. The national ACLU’s Drug Policy Litigation Project and local attorneys are assisting in the lawsuit.

"Forcing parents to choose between providing for their children and giving up their privacy rights is a giant step backward for public policy in Michigan," said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan and an attorney in the case.

"The Fourth Amendment guarantees that no individual in this country can be subjected to a search by the government unless there is reasonable suspicion that they have committed some crime," she added. "Welfare recipients may be poor, but that’s not a crime—not yet, anyway."

Refusal to submit to random drug testing or failure to comply with a mandatory "substance abuse treatment plan" means denial of income support and other benefits under the state’s "Family Independence Agency" program for families with dependent children. (Adults without children are not eligible for welfare in Michigan.)

The mandatory urine testing program, authorized under (but not required by) Congress’ punitive "welfare reform" law of 1996, ignores the less restrictive approaches of other states, Moss said, including testing only where there is suspicion of drug use and voluntary programs for substance abuse and mental health problems.

"This program only hurts families," said Selma Goode, the founder of Westside Mothers. "Whether or not substance abuse drug treatment is mandatory, the fact is that Michigan has no adequate drug therapy programs for needy parents with children—and that is exactly who this law is going to affect."

"The state is willing to spend money on drug testing, but not on drug treatment," she added. "I think they’ve got their priorities mixed up."

Despite Congress’ open invitation to conduct the intrusive searches, Michigan is the only state now actively seeking to implement urine testing. In Oregon, officials quickly ended a drug testing program after finding that anger over the tests impeded treatment and because the testing did nothing to address the far more significant problem of alcoholism.

Florida and Louisiana have considered such programs too, but Florida shelved its plans after threat of an ACLU lawsuit, and the Louisiana legislature has not yet appropriated the funds needed to implement a program.

Michigan officials have claimed that the tests are necessary in order to prepare people on welfare for the realities of the working world. But according to a July 1999 University of Michigan study, Michigan’s welfare population has "unusually high levels of some barriers to work, such as physical and mental health problems, domestic violence, and lack of transportation, but relatively low levels of other barriers, such as drug or alcohol dependence."

"The emotionally charged myth of the ‘drug-addicted welfare mother’ is not supported by empirical data," said Graham Boyd, director of the national ACLU’s Drug Policy Litigation Project. "A recent federal study shows that the percentage of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or drugs is relatively small and is in fact consistent with the general population."

In two recent constitutional challenges to government drug testing of public employees, the Supreme Court ruled that only under very narrow circumstances may government employers impose a drug test without suspicion of drug use, Boyd noted.

The ACLU seeks an immediate halt to Michigan’s program and asks the court to declare it unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case is Marchwinski et al., v. Family Independence Agency, et al.

Attorneys in the case are Kary Moss, Graham Boyd of the ACLU, and Robert A. Sedler of Wayne State University Law School in Detroit and David R. Getto and Cameron R. Getto of Southfield, as cooperating attorneys.

The ACLU’s complaint is available online.

http://www.aclumich.org/press%20releases/welf930.htm

[Sunkissd]

I agree with the person who implied something about Black/Hispanic communities being targeted for these programs.

I know this is a little off topic, but I feel that it's important to add this little side note:

Although I agree that some recipients do abuse the system by drug use and unnecessary spending, there are others who really don't want to stay in the system and are, in fact, embarrassed by needing the aid. Where I live, I believe that a person can only use welfare for 2 and 1/2 yrs, during which, they are supposed to look for a job. This may seem quite simple, but sometimes it just doesn't work out.

Let's say a woman with a young child is receiving aid, and the only company that will hire her is 15 miles from her home. She is responsible for getting to work every day and making sure her child has adequate child care. If the woman doesn't have a car, she'll have to pay for transportation. If she doesn't have any money (other than the little welfare change she gets every month), how will she get to work. She may lose her job because she can't afford transportation. Child care is also an issue. Child care may be available, but quality child care is difficult to find - and very expensive. (which is why some of these children are dying in the care of abusive/neglecting babysitters) Also, most people who are uneducated and on welfare end up working minimum wage jobs (cheap labor for companies) that most often don't offer a very attractive package (healthcare, retirement, etc). Whereas on welfare, at least your children may be covered under Medicaid or whatever type of healthcare is available under the system.

Drug use:

Some may be depressed about their financial situation and abuse drugs as a means to escape the realities of their situation - which at times are quite disturbing. I'm not trying to justify drug use, but I really think there should be more emphasis placed on revamping the welfare system so that people who really need it can rise above their situations financially. The way things are now, it is very difficult (although possible) to rise out of poverty, especially if you are a black mother. This type of support may give hope to somebody

Some may not even feel the need to use drugs if they feel that they can improve their situation.

Only a small percentage (from what I've studied) abuse the system by spending money on things other than what they really need. I don't know how accurate the stats are, but it's worth noting.

This whole drug use thing seems to be another ploy to keep folk down. In the end, it's the children that suffer.

[Honeykiss1974]

Yes, that 2nd article that you posted does mirror the majority of my concerns. I just feel like that Michigan is feeding into a certain group of people's "inner-city drug momma" stereotype of a welfare recipient, which is not the majority.

I think a lot of people forget that folks who live in rural, economically depressed areas (i.e Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas, etc.) receive benefits too. In these types of areas where jobs are few and far between, receiving these gov't benefits can be the difference between life and death.

I just do not think that drug testing for the sake of reducing the amount of people on welfare is effective.

[CrimsonTide4]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6


OK...can we talk about the thread now. ...

CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG

We can get along just fine when you remember to respect other folks and not resort to cheap shots just because a person does not agree with you on a position that you hold.

Everyone has different feelings about the initial question posed and DSuchaLady posted hers and for you to stoop to the level you did and then to come back at her and say leave the childishness out of "your" thread is rather hypocritical. You were the one who acted childish and it might have gone unchecked had someone not sent me a PM about the matter.

Oh and all the fake smiling does not work with me so kill it.

[ClassyLady]

Originally posted by FeeFee
I have a problem with those who receive welfare and have no plans to make any attempts to remove themselves from the system. I've seen too many people where I grew up at receive Public Assitance, continue to have children, yet you could not convince them to get and education (not even a frigging GED) or receive job training (which more than likely will be at no cost to them). They are too busy trying to look fly and hang out at the club on the weekend. Those are the people that piss me off, not college students receiving aid - at least we can assume that a college graduate wants to become a productive member of society.

I agree with you on this aspect. But, just because someone is triflin does not mean that they are on drugs. I have a problem with legislation requiring all welfare recipients to undergo drug testing because it assumes that all welfare recipients are on drugs. There are many people who take advantage of food stamps and section 8 programs not because they have addictions but just because they are poor. Being poor is not a crime.

Also, I think that this measure is based on flawed reasoning. Most people who have serious addictions do not work. Just because someone does not work does not mean that they are welfare recipients. I know quite a few people with serious addicitions and none of them are on welfare, or at least the type of welfare that the legislation is considering. I know people who are receiving disability and workman's compensation, some who are retired and collecting social security and their pensions, and still others who are supported by families who just can't say no. The financial support does not have to be coming from the government.

The purpose of this measure is ultimately to curb drug use. But, I honestly don't think it will work. Most of us know at least one person who is addicted to drugs. Then, most of us know that when it comes to drugs, where there is a will there is a way. A crackhead will always find a way to get high.

[miss priss]

I live in the state of Michigan and this is one of the issues that was brought up in ad campaigns (as well as reparations but I won't go there ). I must say that I am not totally sold on the drug testing debate ...it can be considered as a violation of the 4th amendment (which guarantees that no individual in this country can be subjected to a search by the government unless there is reasonable suspicion that they have committed some crime). With that being said, serious implications can result from this. I mean to imply that a(ll) welfare recipient uses drugs is ridiculous. It does not address other forms of abuse such as alcoholism. However, reform in the welfare system should be devoted to implementing time limits and restraints for those who abuse the system. Welfare recipients should be required to obatin more than just a GED. Most welfare recipients stay on welfare because they are not trained (or required to be trained)in specific skills that would result in employment particularly to jobs preferrable in the area they live in. In California they offer the MOVE program, formally known as More Opportunities for Viable Employment, which offers training and moving assistance to unemployed Tulare County residents who secure jobs in other parts of the country where unemployment is low. However, 5.4 million dollars has been withdrawn threatening the end of welfare-to-work programs. Not to get to politcal here, but also in the state of Michigan we are also fighting the privatization of Blue Cross Blue Shield. Most elderly can not afford the prescription cost let alone paying (in full) for medicines. Some of these seniors are on some form of assistance from the government. Treatments for some ailments for medicinal use (such as marijuana) could be used against them. Drug testing could effect them too. How could that be policed and protect the people who truly need them? It is too many loopholes to justify its ratification.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by miss priss
I live in the state of Michigan and this is one of the issues that was brought up in ad campaigns (as well as reparations but I won't go there ). I must say that I am not totally sold on the drug testing debate ...it can be considered as a violation of the 4th amendment (which guarantees that no individual in this country can be subjected to a search by the government unless there is reasonable suspicion that they have committed some crime). With that being said, serious implications can result from this. I mean to imply that a(ll) welfare recipient uses drugs is ridiculous. .

Thank you for weighing in on the discussion Michigan native!

I keep seeing a re-occurring statement in a lot of the posts, which is that drug testing for welfare recipients implies that welfare recipients are drug addicts. It is coming across to me that the state just doesn't want to fund drug use. And since this has been a problem among welfare recipients specifically, the goal is not only to help curb drug abuse, but to definitely see to it that State money isn't used for it.

And of course, the whole idea comes from a group of people who for the most part wants to be rid of welfare, anyway..(republicans - they want as little governmental support/interference as possible) and so a lot of people will be skeptical of their motives.

I just think the gov't has to start somewhere, and I think this is a good place. Although this won't solve all the problems, I think it is a start to addressing the drug abuse among welfare recipients.