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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Aimless]

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?

Every single one of those examples have to do with finding out whether or not a person is eligible for some specific form of govt. assistance directed towards specific groups that the govt. has determined we should help, and perhaps also as a part of means-testing. What you're saying is that, in addition to providing that information, all those people should also be required to take drug tests. Should everyone who benefits financially from some form of govt. funding be required to pass regular drug tests?

[Dreadnaught]

Every single one of those examples have to do with finding out whether or not a person is eligible for some specific form of govt. assistance directed towards specific groups that the govt. has determined we should help, and perhaps also as a part of means-testing. What you're saying is that, in addition to providing that information, all those people should also be required to take drug tests. Should everyone who benefits financially from some form of govt. funding be required to pass regular drug tests?

My point is the government can condition programs on anything it pleases. I'm not saying that drug testing is the best way to means-test a program. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I'm saying that, if the government is going to give away money/grants/services/etc, the conditions attached to that give-away can be pretty much whatever is deemed appropriate by the legislators making the program. There are plenty of these requirements across the government that are arguably stupid and/or offensive.

[Enoch the Red]

Every single one of those examples have to do with finding out whether or not a person is eligible for some specific form of govt. assistance directed towards specific groups that the govt. has determined we should help, and perhaps also as a part of means-testing. What you're saying is that, in addition to providing that information, all those people should also be required to take drug tests. Should everyone who benefits financially from some form of govt. funding be required to pass regular drug tests?

And you don't think that maybe the benefits in questions are being funneled towards specific groups that don't include drug users?

[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]

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.

[Aimless]

And you don't think that maybe the benefits in questions are being funneled towards specific groups that don't include drug users?

So you do believe that everyone who benefits from government funding should be required to pass regular drug tests?

[Flixy]

My point is the government can condition programs on anything it pleases. I'm not saying that drug testing is the best way to means-test a program. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I'm saying that, if the government is going to give away money/grants/services/etc, the conditions attached to that give-away can be pretty much whatever is deemed appropriate by the legislators making the program. There are plenty of these requirements across the government that are arguably stupid and/or offensive.

Within the bounds of your constitution, of course - legislation can't just breach that.

That said, I personally don't have see difference between spending money on drugs or a movie ticket*. Seems a bit arbitrary to punish one, especially if alcohol and tobacco are still allowed.

* as long as it doesn't impede with getting a job, i.e. recreational use, not addicted.

[Enoch the Red]

So you do believe that everyone who benefits from government funding should be required to pass regular drug tests?

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.

[Dreadnaught]

Within the bounds of your constitution, of course - legislation can't just breach that.

That said, I personally don't have see difference between spending money on drugs or a movie ticket*. Seems a bit arbitrary to punish one, especially if alcohol and tobacco are still allowed.

* as long as it doesn't impede with getting a job, i.e. recreational use, not addicted.

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.

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.

[Flixy]

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.

There's a difference between uncomfortable and unconstitutional. I'm not saying this in particular is unconstitutional, I'm not a legal expert on American law, just saying that you're saying they can ask whatever the hell they want, and they can't. For example, how would you feel about requiring welfare recipients to subject to random house searches? So, obviously there is a line. And with drugs being illegal, blanket drug tests do sound a lot like warrantless searches (a suspicionless search, even), especially considering the low numbers of drug use actually found in tests. And if it's about wasting money, not about principle, it's especially retarded since it costs a lot of money.

[Lewkowski]

There's a difference between uncomfortable and unconstitutional. I'm not saying this in particular is unconstitutional, I'm not a legal expert on American law, just saying that you're saying they can ask whatever the hell they want, and they can't. For example, how would you feel about requiring welfare recipients to subject to random house searches? So, obviously there is a line. And with drugs being illegal, blanket drug tests do sound a lot like warrantless searches (a suspicionless search, even), especially considering the low numbers of drug use actually found in tests. And if it's about wasting money, not about principle, it's especially retarded since it costs a lot of money.

Sure they can refuse it. They just stop getting welfare benefits.

Do you think the what the TSA does violates privacy? Can they do it? Absolutely - privacy isn't a key right in America. Hell we have to report our flipping income to the government... which tells them a lot about our biggest day to day activity.

[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.