Should Legislators be Drug Tested?

[GGT]

Toronto's Mayor Ford used crack because he was severely intoxicated. Yeah, it's fodder for Comedy Central and SNL. But he also wanted to pass legislation cracking down on addicts and drug users, and cutting funding for substance abuse/addiction treatment. What an ironical pun, eh?

Ditto for Trey Radel, a Republican representative recently busted for buying cocaine in DuPont Circle. He voted to gut spending measures related to mental health, and substance abuse, along party lines. Because it was a vote against "Obamacare".

There are legislators demanding drug testing for food stamp or housing assistance applicants, or any "public" employee.

Should they be required to undergo the same testing they demand of others?

What would that mean for our house and senate members, who've been known to hold whiskey votes in caucus meetings?

[LittleFuzzy]

Well, drug testing does not include BAC, AFAIK. But no, I don't think they should have to undergo drug testing. I don't think the other groups should have to either. I don't really like making something I oppose broader as a way of showing how much I dislike it.

[GGT]

Damn straight. I mean, damn right. Uhm, I agree.

[RandBlade]

Toronto's Mayor Ford used crack because he was severely intoxicated. Yeah, it's fodder for Comedy Central and SNL. But he also wanted to pass legislation cracking down on addicts and drug users, and cutting funding for substance abuse/addiction treatment. What an ironical pun, eh?

Ditto for Trey Radel, a Republican representative recently busted for buying cocaine in DuPont Circle. He voted to gut spending measures related to mental health, and substance abuse, along party lines. Because it was a vote against "Obamacare".

There are legislators demanding drug testing for food stamp or housing assistance applicants, or any "public" employee.

Should they be required to undergo the same testing they demand of others?

What would that mean for our house and senate members, who've been known to hold whiskey votes in caucus meetings?

I fully agree that those claiming unemployment welfare should undergo testing. If they're not working and claiming "benefits" from taxpayers supposedly to survive but are putting it on crack or other substances then there's a serious problem. Its also the case that many but not all private employees of companies have to (for legitimate health and safety reasons) undergo regular routine testings as part of their employment and the government takes a portion of their wages away to redistribute to people who don't have to undergo the same tests which is unfair.

I do not think the same of employees though. Those who are working, unless there is a legitimate reason as to why, ought not have to undergo that. However if it became policy that all "'public" employees' were being tested then yes absolutely that should include politicians. Politicians are public employees afterall. However I've not seen any real push for that.

[Ominous Gamer]

If they're not working and claiming "benefits" from taxpayers supposedly to survive but are putting it on crack or other substances then there's a serious problem

study after study has shown that far more taxpayer money is wasted on testing rather than not paying to these supposed druggies. The only time a savings is shown is when the burden to pay for the testing is put on the recipient of benefits (because they can't afford it). Before Florida's was ruled unconstitutional only 2% of those applying failed to pass. In Arizona one person out of 87000 failed.

That's just for shit like food stamps. Giving poor people straight cash without strings has shown to have all kinds of positive side effects.

[RandBlade]

There's a massive flaw in your logic. You can't measure something like this purely on the pass/failure rate as when there is any form of widely publicised welfare reform people take actions accordingly to adjust to it. If a "social" drug user, ie not a full-out addict, knows they're now going to get tested and lose their benefits if they fail then what are they going to do? They have a few options:

1: "Clean up" and so be able to continue to receive benefits.
2: Get a job and so be able to continue using while having money.
3: Continue using but stop claiming benefits.
4: Continue using hoping not to get caught and fail, lose benefits.

Under a pure pass/fail rate measure those under (1) are passed but that's a victory for the reform and you're marking it as a fail for the reform. (2) is also a victory for the reform, you're not counting it. (3) is also a victory of sorts for the taxpayer and you're again not counting it. Only (4) is what you're counting. This is the problem with you lefties, you treat the public like idiots and assume that people will continue what they're doing regardless no matter if you introduce new taxes to penalise work or new benefits to incentivise not working, or change them in reverse. You assume government can take actions without people changing reacting by changing their own actions, you ignore the big picture.

The same happened with a recent welfare reform in the UK. The new government announced a cap on welfare that could be given to people at the rate of £26,000 pa. When it was announced, as with all new policies, it was estimated how much the cap would save the taxpayer. In the year prior to implementation all those who would be affected were written to informing them of the change. When the cap came into effect earlier this year it was calculated how much was being not paid that would have been if it wasn't for the cap and the figure was much lower than the initial figure given. Leftie critics like yourself harped on about it being bungled, that it didn't work etc when the opposite was the case. What had happened was that by the time the cap came into effect there were less than half the number of people claiming more than the cap as when it was initially announced. Despite a large portion of these cases being the toughest, long-term unemployed etc more than half had either moved to a cheaper home (so needed less housing benefits) or got a job etc. The majority of people who would otherwise have been hit by the cap took themselves out of its effects before it was introduced - solely because they knew it was going to be introduced.

[Ominous Gamer]

Your own claims make an assumption that those on benefits are likely enough to be drug users to make any testing program worth it; and not only are you assuming they are drug users, but casual users with the resources to quit any time.

Sorry, not seeing it. The information to support that claim simply doesn't exist, in fact the studies we do have show those with disposable income are more likely to use drugs than those on welfare. Politifact took our governor to task for similar claims a couple of years ago.

[RandBlade]

Disagreed. But the point is your figures are wholly inappropriate since they assume that people don't react to change, which we know is not the case. Though I'm of the opinion that it should be extended to alcohol and tobacco users too in which case I think you're talking the vast majority.

Welfare should go on food, shelter, clothing etc and those wanting to go to parties and rave and smoke etc should do so on their own dime.

[Ominous Gamer]

those wanting to go to parties and rave and smoke etc should do so on their own dime.

Is there evidence of this not being the case?
Over here the vast majority of welfare is in the form of foodstamps, and I'm not aware of any clubs that take EBT cards.

[Timbuk2]

Welfare here comes in the form of cold hard cash. The nub of the problem, I suspect.

[Ominous Gamer]

and randblade believes people use this cash for pleasure instead of necessities? that stress relief isn't an important part of human health? and that these people should be punished for being thrifty and budgeting cash assistance in order to squeak out ahead sometimes?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-the-poor-cash
http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...od_stamps.html
http://freakonomics.com/2013/06/04/s...y-to-the-poor/

[RandBlade]

No I don't believe neither smoking nor drinking are an important part of human health. Going on walks etc are relaxing and healthy and free.

As I work I don't get welfare from the state, instead I get the opposite I get taxed. I don't smoke, its bloody expensive and really unhealthy. I don't drink heavily and if I'm feeling skint the government won't pay my mortgage for me and I won't buy any alcohol. But those on welfare can go out drinking without putting in any work.

[Ominous Gamer]

so its a jealousy problem?

[RandBlade]

No its a fairness problem. If there's enough spare cash lying around for ridiculously expensive unhealthy pleasures then it should go to those working to get it. We're clearly being taxed to much and far too generous with welfare if people on welfare are smoking and drinking - and its far healthier mentally and physically for them if it gets dealt with too.

EDIT: I see your Freakonomics link you've editted in. You must have missed the line in it "A typical poor person is poor not because he is irresponsible, but because he was born in Africa" if you think that line applies to Europe/America . While Business Week's refers to people using the money to raise livestock in Kenya and both refer to corruption as a reason not to give through complicated means. As for Slate I've pushed for years for agricultural subsidies to be abolished. Furthermore I'm not suggesting cash should be spent solely on food - I said above: food, clothing, shelter etc just not drugs, alcohol or tobacco.

[Ominous Gamer]

No its a fairness problem. If there's enough spare cash lying around for ridiculously expensive unhealthy pleasures then it should go to those working to get it. We're clearly being taxed to much and far too generous with welfare if people on welfare are smoking and drinking - and its far healthier mentally and physically for them if it gets dealt with too.

and you think reducing assistance is the answer to fixing vices? when your own example showed people reduced their quality of life in other aspects (like moving into smaller homes).

EDIT: I see your Freakonomics link you've editted in. You must have missed the line in it "A typical poor person is poor not because he is irresponsible, but because he was born in Africa" if you think that line applies to Europe/America .

a quote taken from a study of Kenyans who, GASP, were born in Africa. You could make similar connections concerning kids born into ghettos in most developed countries. Its not so much irresponsibility, but the lack of opportunity.

[RandBlade]

and you think reducing assistance is the answer to fixing vices? when your own example showed people reduced their quality of life in other aspects (like moving into smaller homes).

Yes. Obviously. There was a problem and they fixed it. It worked. They moved to a cheaper home than the one they could never afford (not necessarily smaller) or got a job. Name one way that's a bad thing? Once again, it worked and you're seeing that as bad. State makes changes, people react but you can't accept that.

a quote taken from a study of Kenyans who, GASP, where born in Africa. You could make similar connections concerning kids born into ghettos in most large countries. Its not so much irresponsibility, but the lack of opportunity.

Bullshit. America != Kenya.

[Ominous Gamer]

Name one way that's a bad thing?

The vices still exist.

The state saved money in this specific expenditure, and that's all you need to claim it works. Ignoring all other impact.

Bullshit.

I hope you aren't suggesting that all americans share the same opportunities, and access to those opportunities.

[RandBlade]

Yes it is all I need. What bad impact are you upset over?

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm more pointing out your limited scope of the impact rather than getting upset over the negatives. Such as your claims that drug testing pushing people into jobs. In the areas where the testing was paid by the state I'm not aware of enrollment declining, and I'm curious of your example showing a lower housing allowance resulting in more people finding jobs. Such a claim I'm assuming comes from your belief that these people are moochers and aren't unable to find work but unwilling, which fits into your usual got mine fuck you attitude.

[Enoch the Red]

Is there evidence of this not being the case?
Over here the vast majority of welfare is in the form of foodstamps, and I'm not aware of any clubs that take EBT cards.

No, but there are people who sell their food stamps for cash.

[RandBlade]

I'm more pointing our your limited scope of the impact rather than getting upset over the negatives. Such as your claims that drug testing pushing people into jobs. In the areas where the testing was paid by the state I'm not aware of enrollment declining, and I'm curious of your example showing a lower housing allowance resulting in more people finding jobs. Such a claim I'm assuming comes from your belief that these people are moochers and aren't unable to find work but unwilling, which fits into your usual got mine fuck you attitude.

Its got nothing to do with "got mine fuck you" - such a claim has to do with it being the reality as demonstrated by real life.

The idiocy of the old system was not generous and disliking it has nothing to do with heartlessness. It trapped people in poverty. People who were unemployed would get their home paid for but those in work would not. Thus meaning since people wouldn't enter the job market at the top of the ladder that people couldn't afford to take a job as if they did they'd lose their benefits and they were better off out of work than in work. It is not simply "moochers" but simple common sense. I would like to have a house much nicer than the one I can afford, but I can't - if I don't pay my mortgage the bank takes the home off me and I lose it. Having people in homes they can't dream of possibly affording means that they're simply trapped there on whatever benefits they can get. Its called the poverty trap for a reason.

[Ominous Gamer]

Cant argue with the timing on this report

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ng-unemployed/
http://link.springer.com/article/10....205-013-0474-9

[Khendraja'aro]

In before the expected "Those ungrateful twats should be happy for the benefits they receive!" comments.

[Veldan Rath]

Anyhow, back to the politicians being tested...if the military requires it...shouldn't those that can send them to war?

[sheadunne]

I think the difference is that politicians are elected. Theoretically, they are elected with people knowing they have a drug habit. If the people who elected them only find out afterward that they have a drug problem, there is often a recourse for removing an elected official from office.

Anyone remember this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_...rug_conviction

Good times.

[GGT]

I fully agree that those claiming unemployment welfare should undergo testing. If they're not working and claiming "benefits" from taxpayers supposedly to survive but are putting it on crack or other substances then there's a serious problem.

1) US unemployment benefits can only be claimed after contributing to the unemployment compensation insurance pool, and losing a job. That is not "welfare".

2) US tax-subsidized "benefits" include SNAP (food stamps), WIC (nutritional support for pregnant women and children), rent assistance (HUD section 8 housing, or rent control), and utility assistance (in exchange for utility providers' deep tax cuts). A majority of the recipients are the working poor, but some are disabled or elderly, too.

3) The US reformed "welfare" in the 90's, using "Welfare-to-Work" programs. All of the above subsidies require either job training, continuing education, or employment...and have time-limits. The only way to extend that is by combining other benefits from Veterans Administration or Medicare Disability.

4) In other words, the US does not have "The Dole" like the UK.

/terminology housekeeping.

Its also the case that many but not all private employees of companies have to (for legitimate health and safety reasons) undergo regular routine testings as part of their employment...

Define "legitimate health and safety reasons", what employers are testing for, and why. We can all agree that no one wants an intoxicated airline pilot screaming through the air with 500 passengers on board. We can probably all agree that no one wants an impaired person using heavy machinery or sharp blades that can sever their appendages, or sky-scraper window washers showing up for work after a 5-day binge.

and the government takes a portion of their wages away to redistribute to people who don't have to undergo the same tests which is unfair.

huh? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

I do not think the same of employees though. Those who are working, unless there is a legitimate reason as to why, ought not have to undergo that. However if it became policy that all "'public" employees' were being tested then yes absolutely that should include politicians. Politicians are public employees afterall. However I've not seen any real push for that.

Finally, we hit the vein! I know you're probably not reading US politics news, and didn't make the connection in the OP about a Florida congressman being hypocritical, between his own behavior and public policy. (My thread usually suck that way )

Florida's (R) Governor and (R) state legislators have been running a 'campaign' to drug-test every resident applying for public assistance....AND every state employee. NYC's Mayor Bloomberg had similar proposals for every private employee applying for public assistance. Excluding public political employees, of course.

[Lewkowski]

1. No problems requiring public officials to be drug tested for substances they have made illegal. I think we can all agree that hypocrisy is bad. We can also all agree that public "servants" should be held to a higher standard.

2. Even if it cots more money denying public assistance to people who use that public assistance on illegal frivolity I'm totally OK with that. Its not about the additional expenditure or the "wasted" money that irks me about public assistance programs. Its the inherent bull shit concept that someone should be getting other people's money and then wasting it. Taking from the ants and giving it to the grasshopper is just stupid and offends my sense of justice.

[GGT]

1. No problems requiring public officials to be drug tested for substances they have made illegal. I think we can all agree that hypocrisy is bad. We can also all agree that public "servants" should be held to a higher standard.

What's that mean for the whiskey caucus, or guys like Speaker Boehner, who have 3 martini lunches on the golf course, then return to the House to conduct 'business'? Booze is not an illegal substance...but it's definitely part of public "servants" lives.

2. Even if it cots more money denying public assistance to people who use that public assistance on illegal frivolity I'm totally OK with that. Its not about the additional expenditure or the "wasted" money that irks me about public assistance programs. Its the inherent bull shit concept that someone should be getting other people's money and then wasting it. Taking from the ants and giving it to the grasshopper is just stupid and offends my sense of justice.

You're describing most of Washington, DC behavior. They take "other peoples' money" every damn day, from the lobbyists, special interest groups, and political parties. Take a good, hard look at reality. Then ask yourself who's the ant or grasshopper.

[LittleFuzzy]

Anyhow, back to the politicians being tested...if the military requires it...shouldn't those that can send them to war?

See now the military is one of the areas where I don't mind mandatory drug testing. It is by necessity a strict and disciplined environment.

[Veldan Rath]

See now the military is one of the areas where I don't mind mandatory drug testing. It is by necessity a strict and disciplined environment.

I don't disagree. Just was putting it out there.