Should Welfare recipients be drug tested?

[ImAnOgre]

So, in Florida a federal judge just stuck down the state's mandate that forced drug testing in order to receive government assistance. The beneficiary had to pay for the test.

i'm actually ok with this ruling... forcing the beneficiary to pay for it to me is stupid as these people should not have to pay out of pocket to receive a benefit.

Now.... had the state paid for the test.... I think that's another story.

Any thoughts on this?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...rement/282825/

[Ominous Gamer]

another black eye for the corrupt governor who rode in on a wave of crazy tea partiers.

no one is going to miss this asshole

[Flixy]

http://theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=2006

[Dreadnaught]

The most offensive part of this was always making welfare recipients pay for this. But just from scanning the article, this ruling seems to suggest that mandatory drug tests cannot be imposed as a condition of welfare benefits. I sort of understand the logic, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Isn't agreeing to welfare benefits sort of inviting that scrutiny and search into fairly intimate matters?

[Aimless]

The most offensive part of this was always making welfare recipients pay for this. But just from scanning the article, this ruling seems to suggest that mandatory drug tests cannot be imposed as a condition of welfare benefits. I sort of understand the logic, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Isn't agreeing to welfare benefits sort of inviting that scrutiny and search into fairly intimate matters?

Why would it? Would you say the same about subsidised or socialized healthcare? How about education?

[Lewkowski]

Why would it? Would you say the same about subsidised or socialized healthcare? How about education?

Education YES YES YES YES.

Student loans should always be itemized and NEVER directly go to the individual. IE - they can be paid directly to school or place where the textbooks are purchased, pay for school fees and the like. But right now student loans are easy to abuse.

[Being]

... Isn't agreeing to welfare benefits sort of inviting that scrutiny and search into fairly intimate matters?

How about farm subsidies? Corporate tax breaks? Research funding? Aren't these recipients of federal benefits sort of inviting that scrutiny and search into fairly intimate matters?

[Dreadnaught]

Why would it? Would you say the same about subsidised or socialized healthcare? How about education?

How about farm subsidies? Corporate tax breaks? Research funding? Aren't these recipients of federal benefits sort of inviting that scrutiny and search into fairly intimate matters?

Of course. All of these things have various conditions and qualifications attached that require documentation and disclosure.

[Being]

Of course. All of these things have various conditions and qualifications attached that require documentation and disclosure.

Of course... ...you can provide a source that shows they are tested for unsanctioned drug use.

[Aimless]

Of course. All of these things have various conditions and qualifications attached that require documentation and disclosure.

Into fairly intimate matters?

[Hazir]

Of course. All of these things have various conditions and qualifications attached that require documentation and disclosure.

Still, a farmer could be spending his subsidies on blow and whores. Is that really different?

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[ImAnOgre]

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.

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

[Ominous Gamer]

The cheapest way to get textbooks is generally though craigslists and individuals pawning them off 2nd hand. and you want to remove that, increasing expenses, because you think people abuse student loans.

[Lewkowski]

The cheapest way to get textbooks is generally though craigslists and individuals pawning them off 2nd hand. and you want to remove that, increasing expenses, because you think people abuse student loans.

Bleh now I'm at war with my hatred for moochers and my hatred for the text book industry. Damn you.

[Being]

... moochers ...

Are you saying that people taking students loans don't intend to repay them? Or did you use a word you don't understand?

[Lewkowski]

Are you saying that people taking students loans don't intend to repay them? Or did you use a word you don't understand?

Those are subsidized loans - if they are being used for non-educational purposes then yes they are being moochers.

[Dreadnaught]

Into fairly intimate matters?

Sure. Government attaches conditions and verification requirements to all sorts of government programs. Are we really going to say such requirements are unconstitutional? Because I've got a boatload of government contracts, services and tax breaks to sell you that require verification of race, gender, personal disability, residence, military history, marital status, custody of children and more. But drug tests is where we're going to draw the line?

[GGT]

In addition to Flixy's initial link, there's another one! http://theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=3505


Mandatory "drug testing" is usually stupid and inefficient, often fueled by ignorant or discriminatory attitudes toward certain "substances" and/or the people who use them, or people with a political agenda, and not based in fact.

Myth: "welfare recipients" are using a public subsidy to buy "drugs".

Fact: the majority of legal drinkers, smokers, and prescribed medication users/abusers aren't on "welfare".

Myth: people are applying for "welfare" benefits to fund their illegal/illicit drug use.

Fact: "welfare recipients" use/abuse legal/illegal substances at lower rates than the general US population.

[Ominous Gamer]

I think there are extremes that may need addressing here and there. But there are also programs already in place to help with that. Florida unemployment has several that track skill assessment and job hunting attempts, and WIC (food for babies and moms) requires checkups.


These can also be abused by the system. WIC for example closed most offices in this area, and the closest one is now a 30 minute car ride, 2 hour bus ride, or a near impossible walk, away. Great way to save the government some money without directly cutting benefits.

[Veldan Rath]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.