Should Welfare recipients be drug tested?

[Flixy]

Not to mention that tsa checks at least are based on security concerns, while this is based on.. What, exactly?

[Ominous Gamer]

Got Mine, Fuck You™

[GGT]

OG, should we give benefits to those that are simply lazy?

Ogre, people who are "simply lazy" don't qualify for US welfare benefits! How does this political myth continue to be so pervasive, despite being so wrong? You're making a "moral" statement that's related to your personal philosophy/attitude against public welfare....but it's not based in facts about the people who benefit from those programs. ie, predominantly the elderly, disabled, veterans, or infants/children.

I disagree with the idea that this is an invasion of privacy or a warrantless search. By accepting welfare, you're accepting a relationship with the state that necessarily abrogates some of your rights. And, as to my earlier point, all sorts of government services come with disclosures that may make people uncomfortable.

Hang on, which "rights" do you think can be abrogated by 'accepting welfare'?

It sounds like you're trying to lump (poor) individuals in the same category as businesses, using Contract Law, and assuming they have the same relationships with, or needs from, "the government". Or you're conflating (poverty rate) household income with corporate income (profit) disclosures, in exchange for services, tax credits, or subsidies....while using the term Welfare indiscriminately.

But I agree it's silly to penalize welfare recipients for doing things for their personal pleasure. Though it's also not silly to create a welfare system that restricts certain benefits from drug addicts.

Be more specific: which benefits should be restricted, and to what type of "drug addict"?

[Enoch the Red]

Ogre, people who are "simply lazy" don't qualify for US welfare benefits! How does this political myth continue to be so pervasive, despite being so wrong? You're making a "moral" statement that's related to your personal philosophy/attitude against public welfare....but it's not based in facts about the people who benefit from those programs. ie, predominantly the elderly, disabled, veterans, or infants/children.

Setting aside the fact that what one might consider laziness is somewhat subjective, do you really believe that it is impossible to game the current welfare system?

[GGT]

Setting aside the fact that what one might consider laziness is somewhat subjective, do you really believe that it is impossible to game the current welfare system?

Any/Every system (created by humans) can be exploited, abused, extorted, corrupted, or "gamed" to some degree.

Of course the US Welfare system will have a certain amount of fraud, as any other industry or sector does...but that doesn't negate legitimate need for the entire public safety net.

If you think it does...please explain.

[GGT]

Focusing on individual "Welfare" recipients, and using "drug-testing" as a moral means-test, is one of the more depressing failures in creating good US public policy. No amount of private, religious, or charitable contributions can replace the importance of having a job, or earning a living wage.

[Dreadnaught]

Hang on, which "rights" do you think can be abrogated by 'accepting welfare'?

It sounds like you're trying to lump (poor) individuals in the same category as businesses, using Contract Law, and assuming they have the same relationships with, or needs from, "the government". Or you're conflating (poverty rate) household income with corporate income (profit) disclosures, in exchange for services, tax credits, or subsidies....while using the term Welfare indiscriminately.

EG your right to go a month without a government drug test. Or your right to do whatever the hell you want; if you are part of a welfare program, you have to meet the eligibility requirements. Just as, if I want to deduct my business expenses from my taxes, I have to disclose those expenses and submit them to an audit.

This really isn't radical.

[Aimless]

Honestly there are very few welfare programs that I think should be provided by the government. Philosophically do I consider it particularly evil that the programs that are provided are designed to help citizens who are behaving lawfully? Not really. If they can afford recreational drugs then I believe there are likely people who are better candidates for the aid. If they are suffering from drug addiction then it becomes a question of whether or not tax payers are subsidizing their addictions.

So, all federal and local government employees, almost all university employees, almost all students, anyone who receives tax-credits, the vast majority of all scientists, most healthcare personnel, all farmers, all bankers... have I forgotten anyone? Oh, right, almost everyone. Man, that's a lot of drug-tests every single month.

[Lewkowski]

Sorry Lewk, I'm on the band wagon that the TSA is not a legal search either AND is a waste of money.

Now you're just being silly.

[Enoch the Red]

So, all federal and local government employees, almost all university employees, almost all students, anyone who receives tax-credits, the vast majority of all scientists, most healthcare personnel, all farmers, all bankers... have I forgotten anyone? Oh, right, almost everyone. Man, that's a lot of drug-tests every single month.

I'd much rather just do away with the subsidies entirely, but yeah, if the government is providing you assistance it may come with strings attached. Like using the money for what it is intended for. Which in the case of welfare does not generally include subsidizing the use of illegal drugs.

If you're saying you aren't comfortable with the government putting it's nose into the private affairs of individuals you are preaching to the choir. If you are saying that the government shouldn't be able to dictate to the individual what he or she does with or to their body I'm with you. If you are saying that these drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place, I couldn't agree more. However, when you invite the government into your affairs and expect them to foot the bill I don't think it's a radical or unfair concept to make sure that money is going to those who need it the most and being used for providing basic necessities not frivolous luxuries. I'm not seeing the danger in expecting there to be accountability.

[Veldan Rath]

Now you're just being silly.

In what way?

Let me clairify my statement thought. Metal detectors, luggage scanning are border line but I can live with. Random groping is an offense that bugs me to no end. And does not add security.

[Ominous Gamer]

being used for providing basic necessities not frivolous luxuries.

Poor people don't deserve R&R, we should ban them from movies, parks, and libraries too. All that time wasted when they should be hunting down all those jobs out there.

[Flixy]

EG your right to go a month without a government drug test. Or your right to do whatever the hell you want; if you are part of a welfare program, you have to meet the eligibility requirements. Just as, if I want to deduct my business expenses from my taxes, I have to disclose those expenses and submit them to an audit.

This really isn't radical.

You only have to keep receipts, though - intrusive government checks can only be used when there's a reasonable suspicion.

[Ominous Gamer]

EG your right to go a month without a government drug test.

A failed test resulted in a years ban of benefits. Pot can stay in your system for weeks, and some hair tests can detect drugs 3 months past.

How many businesses have been forced to close shop for a year due to say... a single OSHA violation?

[Aimless]

I see it before me now... you have to save samples of your urine for six years

[ImAnOgre]

Ogre, people who are "simply lazy" don't qualify for US welfare benefits! How does this political myth continue to be so pervasive, despite being so wrong? You're making a "moral" statement that's related to your personal philosophy/attitude against public welfare....but it's not based in facts about the people who benefit from those programs. ie, predominantly the elderly, disabled, veterans, or infants/children.

I just LOL'd while drinking coffee... You owe me a keyboard.


People who are simply lazy don't qualify my ass.
The first place I looked, eligibility for food stamps:

· you are a citizen of the United States or have a certain legal alien status
· you provide all of the required documents as proof of the household's situation
· you and/or other household members comply with work requirements
· the household's monthly income does not exceed the income limits based on the number of people who live in the household
· the rent or mortgage payment, utility bills, and in some cases medical, child care and child support expenses are considered in the eligibility determination process if proof of these expenses are provided.

Lazy person who decides to quit working stops going to work, employer lets them go, instant qualification.

On another related topic, I really love how you like to tell me how I come across my beliefs without having a clue how I actually came across them.

[Enoch the Red]

So you believe the purpose of welfare is to make sure everyone has access to R&R?

Maybe a better question is, "What don't you think is a good use of welfare funds?"

[Ominous Gamer]

So you believe the purpose of welfare is to make sure everyone has access to R&R?

Maybe a better question is, "What don't you think is a good use of welfare funds?"

I believe mental health is extremely important, especially for those who are generally in need of welfare, especially since worrying about basics such as surviving have been shown to have highly negative effects on a persons well being.

Straight cash in the hands of the needy is being shown to work surprisingly well. So there is no answer to your question.

[Dreadnaught]

So, all federal and local government employees, almost all university employees, almost all students, anyone who receives tax-credits, the vast majority of all scientists, most healthcare personnel, all farmers, all bankers... have I forgotten anyone? Oh, right, almost everyone. Man, that's a lot of drug-tests every single month.

You only have to keep receipts, though - intrusive government checks can only be used when there's a reasonable suspicion.

The strawman of drug tests for all is blah, but yeah, if the government wanted to condition a research grant on a drug test, they can. Most private corporations can and do make random drug testing a condition of employment. And a decent number of federal employees are drug-tested depending on the job.

[Enoch the Red]

I believe mental health is extremely important, especially for those who are generally in need of welfare, especially since worrying about basics such as surviving have been shown to have highly negative effects on a persons well being.

Straight cash in the hands of the needy is being shown to work surprisingly well. So there is no answer to your question.

So just so we are clear you believe drug use is a component of mental health?

How much straight cash should an individual be given after they have blown all of their money on an addiction and now need the money to survive?

[Ominous Gamer]

I think recreational use is no worse than smoking, liquor, riding around in a 20+ year old car with 20" rims, grills, bling, over paying for shit like Nikes, Gucci, etc, or buying basically any name brand food over store brand.

But leave it up to you to only see this in black and white, to see drug use as an addiction that someone is going to spend all their money on. Even if they did, no one here has said they should get any more money than someone who can budget. It does point to a mental/addiction problem that the US has a rather poor record of properly treating, something that needs to change.

[GGT]

I just LOL'd while drinking coffee... You owe me a keyboard.


People who are simply lazy don't qualify my ass.
The first place I looked, eligibility for food stamps:

· you are a citizen of the United States or have a certain legal alien status
· you provide all of the required documents as proof of the household's situation
· you and/or other household members comply with work requirements
· the household's monthly income does not exceed the income limits based on the number of people who live in the household
· the rent or mortgage payment, utility bills, and in some cases medical, child care and child support expenses are considered in the eligibility determination process if proof of these expenses are provided.

Lazy person who decides to quit working stops going to work, employer lets them go, instant qualification.

On another related topic, I really love how you like to tell me how I come across my beliefs without having a clue how I actually came across them.

Not sure why I made you laugh. I suspect it's because you don't realize that federal "Welfare" was dramatically changed in the 90's to incentivize work. Or maybe you're not considering what those eligibility requirements or terminology actually means, beginning with "household" or "work"?

Sorry to burst your bubble....but the "lazy person" who stops showing up at work, and is consequently fired....is NOT automatically eligible for, or qualified to receive, Food Stamps. Their need is calculated by the household and/or family income, and compared to "work" activity or efforts.

University students who live with other students in off-campus housing, or some hellenic-type "Animal House" situation, don't automatically qualify for Food Stamps. Young people sharing living space don't instantly get Food Stamps if they have parents with assets, or their own assets.

Yeah, where did you get these ideas....and how can you defend those ideas as "beliefs", when they're not based in fact?

[Enoch the Red]

I think recreational use is no worse than smoking, liquor, riding around in a 20+ year old car with 20" rims, grills, bling, over paying for shit like Nikes, Gucci, etc, or buying basically any name brand food over store brand.

Which would also qualify, in my book, as an improper use of welfare funds.

But leave it up to you to only see this in black and white, to see drug use as an addiction that someone is going to spend all their money on. Even if they did, no one here has said they should get any more money than someone who can budget. It does point to a mental/addiction problem that the US has a rather poor record of properly treating, something that needs to change.

Drug use in and of itself does not equal addiction, true. That also might be the reason why I specified drug addicts. The purpose of most welfare is not to make sure drug users have a little walking around money, it is to provide a very basic safety net that allows an individual to survive while they get back up on their feet.

[GGT]

It's also meant to help children get their footing, without being punished for their parents' mistakes. It also assists Veterans, elderly, disabled, and the chronically ill...regardless of their drug-use or "addictions" that might be caused by their life condition, for which they need help to overcome. Chicken/Egg "Ethics" have never made very good public policy.

[Ominous Gamer]

Which would also qualify, in my book, as an improper use of welfare funds.

and how exactly do you expect to run a welfare users life to the extent that you're sure they aren't using government assistance on items you consider improper?


especially since it appears mental health doesn't qualify as something in need of a safety net for those in need.

[Veldan Rath]

Cool, I'm gonna use an EBT card to buy firearms and ammo so I can cut down on my stress at the firing range! (And pay for an NRA membership!)

[Ominous Gamer]

beats having to go through the convenient store thats only going to give you pennies on the dollar for the cash.

everyone hates middlemen

[Veldan Rath]

If you are actually saying yer ok with that type of purchase, then I applaud you for your consistency.

[Enoch the Red]

and how exactly do you expect to run a welfare users life to the extent that you're sure they aren't using government assistance on items you consider improper?

I don't expect to myself to do anything, and I have much lower expectations for what the government can or should be trusted to do. I just don't think it's egregious to expect some form of accountability from the people receiving assistance.

[Ominous Gamer]

expect some form of accountability from the people receiving assistance.

and you think drug tests are an efficient method of this? despite the waste they have been shown to be.