Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2013, 03:24 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

Quote:
Lawmakers seeking to abolish income taxes and stymie unions in Kansas think it might also be worthwhile to make the poor and unemployed pee in cups to prove they're not wasting taxpayer money on drugs.
A favorite policy of Republican legislators across the country, the latest drug-testing proposal has gathered support from leaders of Kansas's conservative-dominated statehouse. Kansas lawmakers say people who want unemployment insurance or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits would have to undergo the testing, and if they are found to have drugs in their system would be required to receive treatment or have their benefits suspended.
"It adds credibility to the system," state Rep. J.R. Claeys (R-Salina) told The Huffington Post. "People are putting their hard-earned tax dollars into the program to help folks and lift them out of poverty. It makes sense that they are drug-free or are going to rehab to become drug-free."
Kansas Drug Testing Next On The Docket Of 'Ultraconservative' Bills

I'm not so sure about this. On one hand, I agree that there needs to be a way to make sure welfare recipients aren't wasting taxpayers' money. How often do we hear about people claiming to be poor and unable to afford certain things, yet they have cell phones, cable and tattoos? Of course, using the welfare benefits for drugs doesn't make everyone else receiving the benefits look good.

But I don't know if requiring drug testing is the answer. I do think there needs to be a way to make sure recipients are not being irresponsible with the money, because it makes better-off Americans upset, and rightfully so. But I'm honestly not sure what the answer is.

Thoughts?
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:27 PM   #2
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 09:04 AM
Many businesses require drug testing. All school and professional sports do (and not just testing for performance enhancing drugs). Why not governmental assistance?
__________________

__________________
Caleb8844 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:35 PM   #3
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 09:04 AM
because it's been tested and proven in other states to be nothing but a waste of taxpayers' money. it costs more to test than any state saves by cutting drug users off. it's also incredibly ridiculous to put stupid stipulations (that don't work as any means to dissuade people from not taking drugs) on receiving welfare. not to mention, welfare isn't a job. it's a right those who fall below a certain income bracket are entitled to receiving.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:44 PM   #4
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
it's a right those who fall below a certain income bracket are entitled to receiving.
A social program is not a right.
__________________
Caleb8844 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:52 PM   #5
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 09:04 AM
^Exactly(khan's post), it's been proven to cost more money than it saves. All this is is a perpetuation of a stereotype; all welfare recipients are lazy irresponsible animals that just sit around all day get high and reproduce.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 04:56 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
because it's been tested and proven in other states to be nothing but a waste of taxpayers' money. it costs more to test than any state saves by cutting drug users off. it's also incredibly ridiculous to put stupid stipulations (that don't work as any means to dissuade people from not taking drugs) on receiving welfare. not to mention, welfare isn't a job. it's a right those who fall below a certain income bracket are entitled to receiving.
Pretty much!
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:32 PM   #7
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
^Exactly(khan's post), it's been proven to cost more money than it saves. All this is is a perpetuation of a stereotype; all welfare recipients are lazy irresponsible animals that just sit around all day get high and reproduce.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us...ests.html?_r=0

BTW, I believe I saw some video back then of a reporter asking the governor (who's also payed from taxpayer money) to submit himself to testing for drugs. The governor refused.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:41 PM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post

BTW, I believe I saw some video back then of a reporter asking the governor (who's also payed from taxpayer money) to submit himself to testing for drugs. The governor refused.
Brilliant
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:33 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Reading this thread, as so many others, I get the worrying takeaway that the main problem is the costs outweigh the potential gains. And that if they didn't, well that would be alright then.

How about: it's completely illiberal and intrusive. I presume only nice employed people are allowed to have drugs.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:44 PM   #10
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
Reading this thread, as so many others, I get the worrying takeaway that the main problem is the costs outweigh the potential gains. And that if they didn't, well that would be alright then.

How about: it's completely illiberal and intrusive. I presume only nice employed people are allowed to have drugs.
I can't speak for others but that's not my stance, I'm just trying to relate to those that support it and the supposed reasons that they support it.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:50 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 01:04 AM
That's fair enough, but perhaps the time for reaching across the aisle is over.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 10:34 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb8844 View Post
Many businesses require drug testing. All school and professional sports do (and not just testing for performance enhancing drugs). Why not governmental assistance?
Because it's insulting and makes presumptions about people who are poor and struggling?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us...ests.html?_r=0

BTW, I believe I saw some video back then of a reporter asking the governor (who's also payed from taxpayer money) to submit himself to testing for drugs. The governor refused.
"The Daily Show" had a bit once where one of the correspondents did that in Florida. Yeah. If people who are struggling have to prove they're not abusing taxpayer money, then the government officials passing these laws have to do the same thing. 'Cause lord knows they never waste or abuse taxpayer dollars!

Also, to the note of how some people are getting assistance yet still have things like cell phones and TV and that-first off, some of that stuff they may have had prior to their financial struggles. Second, sometimes some of that stuff is gifts from family and friends.

And third, sometimes you just want that one thing that makes you feel like you've got some sense of normalcy. If you're sitting there with a sick parent or trying to keep a roof over your head or whatever, sometimes you want something to take you away from that shit for a while.

If someone is receiving assistance and they are shown to be abusing it with drugs or whatever, then yes, deal with them as needed from there. But it's offensive to assume that anytime someone goes to get government aid, they're going to abuse it or scam people with it. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 10:58 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Also, to the note of how some people are getting assistance yet still have things like cell phones and TV and that-first off, some of that stuff they may have had prior to their financial struggles. Second, sometimes some of that stuff is gifts from family and friends.
That makes a lot of sense. I feel foolish for not seeing it that way.

File what I said under "duh".
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 11:21 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 09:04 AM
No, hey, that's okay . A lot of people don't automatically go to that conclusion, and I do get how it can come off confusing or weird for people when they see someone with something that it doesn't look like they could afford.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 11:26 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:04 AM
I don't want them spending tax dollars on marijuana. Or booze, even thought there isn't a test for that. Gum is fairly useless too, so no gum. And no tabloids or trashy magazines; they don't need that. No movies unless they're free ones in the park. Oh, no cigarettes, obvs. No chips.
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com