Welfare recipients to be drug tested

No, not welfare money; their own money. Extra money that doesn't put them over the limit for welfare.

What say you? People can't use food stamps for alcohol, but can buy their groceries with it and then buy some booze with their begging money. Why not the same here?

 

You do have a choice. If drugs are that important to you, then find a (*)(*)(*)(*) job.

That's not my point. My point is that you can call it discrimination all you want, but it's just another requirement that you must meet in order to claim free benefits. I wouldn't attempt to get on welfare if I made $100,000, since obviously I don't need it. I also wouldn't attempt to get on welfare when I had enough money to buy drugs, since that would be wrong.

 

They shouldn't be allowed to do that either. They obviously could put that money towards food, but they choose to take the food stamps from the taxpayer so they can use their own money to buy drugs. At the end of the day, they have a certain amount of money, their own and welfare combined, and if they have enough left over for drugs, they need to get the hell off of welfare.

On top of that, as I said before, drinking booze is not going to assist you in improving your life. If you're not interested in improving your life, you shouldn't be on welfare, since that's the point of welfare.

 

Why? If the government has no problem taking money from a drug user, it shouldn't have a problem giving to one either.

Plus, why stop (not that you've explained why start) there?

What about not giving benefits to those with DWI's or those who buy alcohol at all? What about people who drive at excessive speeds? What about people who beat their wives? What about gamblers? What about people who participate in extreme sports? What about the obese? What about cigarette smokers?

Perhaps you could eplain why I'm "sad" while you're at it.

Many drugs diminish the appetite so there's an argument that for some drug users, they would have more discretionary income because they wouldn't need to buy as much food that is becoming more and more expensive.

"Sad" is an emotional response.

Try logic next time please.

 

It's all true, I know it (and to be honest I'm playing some Devil's Advocate). But should we really be restricting the choices of those who are rightfully dependent?

 

Although that sounds like a nice talking point, it really doesn't mean anything.

I'm all for it. I don't want my money going to people who would rather throw their money away than use it to improve their lives.

It is sad because you would take money from me and other hardworking people on the premise that you will use it to improve your life, and then spend it on drugs. Not only are you lying, you are hurting yourself and feeding money into the drug trafficking industry.

Many drugs increase the appetite. No drug makes you more productive, and no drug is free. If you want to eat less, feel free.

I'll say what I want. It is sad.

 

That is a good question. To be honest, they should be on an entirely different type of welfare with an entirely different set of rules.

The welfare I'm referring to is that which is intended for the sole purpose of assisting someone in getting on their feet and getting off of it. Also the welfare that relates directly to health care. Both of these would be directly affected by drug use.

 

Many artists and writers have created their finest and most lucrative works while under the influence of drugs. Many others use recreationally, often only on the weekends, in order to relax from the inherent stress of a system in which we're overworked. Who are you or the government to say what enhances someone's life? I'm not convinced most elected officials have the ability to manage their own personal lives. Do you really believe they have the ability to make these choices for you?

You assuming some drugs don't improve the lives of many, and that is subjective and simply not the case.

A drug trafficking industry that is harmful how? If I grow marijuanna in my backyard, who am I harming exactly and how am I trafficking drugs? And when trafficking is harmful, it isn't because of me...it's because of the government and the failed war on drugs.

Yes, weed does. Explain to me how it's harmful though.
Stimulants do not curb the appetite, but they do make many people more productive. Many drugs, such as kratom used by workers in south Asia rice fields, for example, result in a strong desire for people to work.

Say what you want.

Keep personal attacks to yourself.

 

Oh, you've read most of them? Thanks, I think I'm flattered.

Non sequitur.
Welfare recipients are receiving money from the taxes I pay. The sales taxes they pay, come from the welfare money at least in part. Your point is moot.

No, it's not. Where does the Constitution say that as a blanket for all things? It doesn't. The law discriminates all the time. Take a driver's license for example: It's a privilege, not a right. You get a DUI, they take your license. The law is not simple.

Nope. You FAIL.

Obesity is not remotely like the drug issue. Some people are fat because fattening food it cheap and healthy food is expensive. Some have a propensity to be fat - it runs in the family and it's hard to control. Some are fat due to medical issues.

It ends where the law says it does. That's why we have courts and the SCOTUS.

The "slippery slope" argument is often used in an inflammatory manner, or speciously - like you just used it. It is not an effective argument in this case.

 

Welfare recipients are receiving money from the taxes I pay. The sales taxes they pay, come from the welfare money at least in part. Your point is moot.[/quote]

Why? Why should druggies get access to emergency service? Parks? Public roads? It's not like they're going to something other than their dealer!

Yet the other kind sir disagreed; he said you could cut their benefits. What about those who use welfare checks for alcohol? Should we do breathalyzers?

You claim drug use is the only thing that should limit ones ability to receive welfare. How do we know it won't change to 'alcohol use' later? It's a dangerous precedent.


[I don't believe the majority of the above post]

 

Drugs do not make you more productive. I'm not going to support people while they pursue careers in art and writing. The purpose of welfare is to get someone on their own two feet as fast as possible. This means a regular job, not the aspiration to be a famous writer.

The government doesn't have to make those choices for you. But if you're asking for welfare, I have every right to have a say in what my tax money goes to.

Define "improve", does it make them work harder? Let's just say for the sake of argument that drugs do absolutely no harm. But every minute you are doing drugs, you are not working.

When I say "improve the lives" I don't mean have a fun weekend. I mean improve their economic situation so they can get off of welfare.

That is only one aspect. If you're growing it in your backyard, you're still spending time that you should be spending trying to get off of welfare.

I don't believe in the war on drugs either, but this is the world we live in. The fact is, by buying drugs, you are supporting criminals and everything their organizations do.

Weed does not make you more productive. If you need weed to get a job, then you're not trying hard enough.

They also damage you in the long term. Keep in mind these handouts we are discussing include health care. Besides, I'd be surprised if welfare recipients used kratom on the weekends to improve their work ethic.

 

Apples/oranges. Another non sequitur.

I don't know. What do you think?

No, I didn't say that at all.

 

That's where this policy could lead.

If I had my way, there'd be a limit on how much alcohol one could consume regardless of whether or not they're behind the wheel— but I never preached freedom (and meant it, sometimes I pretend...).

Well you didn't mention any other requirements, care to share?

 

So people can only use their welfare funds on activities that will result in employment? Actually, why not give people a budget with specific items they're allowed to purchase? Better yet, why not simply provide them with these goods and services and not give them a check at all?

And yes, some drugs do make you more productive. Stimulants, including caffeine that many wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the mornings without, make many people more productive.

That's because you don't consider this to be productive work even though it could result in future income (it doesn't have to make someone wealthy.) That doesn't mean that this work in unproductive.

I don't wish for the government to use the tax revenues that I generate for the unnecessary welfare state of our military that I feel we'd be more peaceful without.

One doesn't have to become famous to generate income from work in the arts. Money's money and that's all that's important is it not?

Of course you do, but as a taxpayers, so do I.

Yes, some drugs are used for the express purpose for workers to work harder. Someone's who's unemployed could look harder for a job if they're hopped-up on coffee, a drug, for example.

This is a silly statement. Just because someone does drugs doesn't mean that they're addicts or would require the use of drugs while at work.

So you think someone who is on welfare should spend 100% of their time searching for a job? Hmmm, they wouldn't be getting much sleep. I hope they have good drugs on them.

Crime is a social construct. Your statement has little meaning.

Weed reduces stress levels. Stress kills.

Weed doesn't damage you in the long term. As far as healthcare goes, many activities are far more damaging to the body. I'm mostly being pedantic and understand the risks of most drugs (excluding weed) that I'm not making excuses for. As far as health concerns go, where do you draw the line?

(Bedtime. SOME of us have work in the morning. )

 

Sure, why the hell not. The point of welfare is to make sure people aren't starving or dying, not to make sure they are living in luxury.

I'm not talking about caffeine or even nicotine. I'm talking about drugs that people take with the intention of getting intoxicated.

Productive means getting off of welfare as soon as possible. I'm not going to pay to take care of someone while they write a book for 5 years in the hope that it becomes a bestseller. You're implying that we should subsidize someone for as long as they want, as long as they are investing in their future (or so they say).

Neither do I. That's not related to this issue.

If they're making money, great. You can learn to do it without drugs.

Welfare is meant to help someone get on their feet. Don't tell me that supplying them with drugs is a necessary component to their success. Following your logic, we have to buy them cars, cell phones, and fax machines because it will make them more productive.

You can stretch this all the way down to eating sugar, but as you know I'm not advocating we ban everything that isn't 100% perfectly healthy. I'm advocating that we ban drugs that do more harm than help.

Okay. Every second you are puffing on whatever you may be smoking, you are not working, but this is one of many points I have made, so I'll concede this one.

No, but they should spend 0% of their time doing things that are counter-productive to that goal.

When you buy drugs, you are giving money to criminal organizations. FACT. Are you going to dispute this?

Being sober and stressed is healthier than doing drugs and being happy.

Weed damages you in the long term. I don't know how you can say otherwise with a straight face. Smoking anything damages you in the long term.

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

Again, the health factor is only one of my issues. I draw the line on anything with health damages that outweigh the potential benefits. Weed is detrimental to your health and it does not make you more productive.

 

could

We already tried that from 1920 to 1933. It didn't work.

Nope.

 

The welfare recipients themselves will front the cost of the drug test, once/if they pass, they will be reimbursed the cost.

Officials estimate the initial screenings would cost about $10 per person – refundable if the individual passes – and first-time failures will be disqualified for one year from receiving benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. A second failure disqualifies the individual for three years.
http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-florida-drug-test-for-welfare-20110531,0,7614905.story

 

There is probable cause, not in every case, but then those that it does effect arent exactly raising their hand up, (except for handouts).
This will give us a place to start, statistically.

 

probably valid for all workers to do drug testing too, since this can cause OSH issues.

 

this same governor is pushing for open gun carry

 

I guess he's only referring to the right to collect free taxpayer money and spend it on illegal drugs.

 

I am a drug user and I think this is a bad idea.

Not because it's unfair to drug users or any such nonsense like that, but because drug tests are easy to pass and fake, even with someone watching. I have done it before myself. Even if they were hard to fake, they would still only catch pot smokers. A vast majority of the other drugs used are cycled out of your system in hours.

If you are on welfare, you shouldn't be using recreational drugs, even weed. Get up and go find a job. Quit making your country waste money on trying to force you to do what is right.

 

Of course it wouldn't be foolproof but even if it were only partly effective I'd still support it.

Yeah, but if you could count on people to just do the right thing on their own, we wouldn't be in this situation.

 

Due to my personal experience of passing drug tests while on drugs, I don't think it would be effective at all.

Hair and blood tests can't be faked, but they are exponentially more expensive to test than urine or saliva, so only high level government agencies or security companies use those tests.

Saliva will just test if a person is actually on drugs at that particular moment, which is what they should be testing for in the workplace in my opinion. Urine... Get a buddy to fill a un-lubricated condom full of clean urine. Stuff it between your legs to keep it at body temperature. When they watch, they just stand behind you in the restroom. You can pull it out like it was your junk and prick the end with a palmed needle or paper clip.

 

Of course if you're slick you can always use a trick like the one you described, but I don't see the vast majority of people pulling this off. Don't people on probation do urine tests? If it works for them well enough I would assume it would work well enough for this.

On a side note - If I were a smoker I'd quit in a second before I walked around with a condom full of urine stuffed in my pants lol.