Mandatory Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients?

[ggaulin]

1- You owe it to society whether you get welfare or not!

2- Are you assuming that most of the recipients are junkies? If not, than how do you justify spending so much money to do it.

3- Do you know that a lot of companies dropped the drug testing programs because they aren’t really cost effective. Unless you might have high liability costs drug testing is too expensive. How can the government do it to his employees? Because the government is not accountable in how the money is spent/wasted.

4- Which are the consequences for a positive test? Which ones are for a false positive?

5- Should we move people that use drugs from the welfare system to the jail system? Is that fiscally efficient?

I think that mandatory drug testing would not put a dent in reduction of welfare costs or bad behaviors.

No one has a “debt” to society to avoid drugs anymore than they have a “debt” to avoid skydiving, motorcyle riding or even cigarette smoking. One who collects unearned dollars from the public coffers does have a debt.

Airline pilots, professional athletes and police officers are subject to random, mandatory drug testing. It works for them!

The consequence of a positive reading is mandatory drug counseling paid for by the proceeds of the welfare payment. Again, this is not intended to be punitive but rather a means to get folks back to being productive.

 

[otjm]

This is how the dictionary defines the term “sponge”: a person who persistently borrows from or lives at the expense of others; sponger; parasite. It may not satisy some of those in the PC crowd, but I think it pretty accurately describes the individuals we are talking about.

Ican read dictionaries. However, I don’t think that the Gospel uses the word “sponge” in regards to people. And the last time I checked, being Christian was anything but politically correct; perhaps you run around with a different crowd.

I believe that such a policy is good for society and I believe it is consistent with the teachings of Christ. I don’t believe that welfare should be a source of income for life. I have stated earlier, overall, everyone should be contributor to society, not a taker. No one is entitled to that. That is not good for the individual because they will be suppressed and not able to reach their full potential.

Then perhaps you could point out, without taking a selective quote from the Gospels, something more substantal than the issue of the talents. I have no question that Christ wants all to use their God given gifts. You seem to be presuming that everyone has a gift - a talent - for working productively. My limited experience is that there are any number of people who simply cannot hold a job. It is also my limited experience that the Church’s attitude is not that anyone should have anything withheld based on work ethic, but that their basic needs must be met whether or not we judge them “worthy”, or to use your term, a “sponge”.

Actually, I am a business owner and in my years in business, I have employed some pretty rough characters. Still, my job was to provide the opportunity. I never felt I owed them a job or an income for that matter unless they performed.

and if someone did not measure up to your standards, I will lay dollars to donuts you fired them. I do not object to you firing them; but it would be beyond simplicity to presume that they were simply lazy.

One last thought, read Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 25. Jesus tells the parable of the talents. I believe that Jesus wants people to be productive and contributing to the good of society and His church.

You might want to pull out the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see how the Church responds to the poor. It is a bit different than you do.

I do not mean to be sharp, but I will explain: I grew up with ADHD, and a “tape” running through my head that I was lazy. It wasn’t until I was 42, and had a long conversation with a boss, that I finally received partial confirmation that I wasn’t lazy - his comment was that my work ethic was outstanding, just that my organizational abilites suffered. It was another 8 years before I finally figured out what I had was ADHD. I always had to fight the ADHD, but had no clue what my battle really was.

And I was never on welfare. But it taught me a lessong: we label many people. Just because we give them a label doesn’t mean that our analysis was correct. I have friends who, like me, were in Viet Nam. Two of them suffered, and still do to this day, with PTSD. It is all too easy for somone who has never suffered from that, to say “That is all in theiir head; they just need to get over it.” They are right - it is in the head of the person who is still trying to deal with the realities of war. But to say “they just need to get over it” is an abject failure to understand the reality of that person. They are crippled - it just happens that instead of having a leg blown off, they have had their mental stability destroyed.

I am not excusing each and every person who may be on welfare. However, the reality (and reality is not about political correctness - which is all too often a denial of reality) is that many of them are simply incapable of holding down a job. It is all too easy to sit back and dismiss them as lazy. Some may be. Many are not. And the Church’s approach through its “welfare” system is not to judge them but to try to help; not to qualify them, but to deal with an open hand. The paraphrase is that the left hand should not know what the right hand is doing. The Church, through Catholic Charities (among others) has training programs, drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, assistance through money, food, clothing and shelter. But it does not judge the “worthiness” of an individual by whether or not they participate in, or “graduate” from such programs.

 

[goofyjim]

No one has a “debt” to society to avoid drugs anymore than they have a “debt” to avoid skydiving, motorcyle riding or even cigarette smoking. One who collects unearned dollars from the public coffers does have a debt.

Airline pilots, professional athletes and police officers are subject to random, mandatory drug testing. It works for them!

The consequence of a positive reading is mandatory drug counseling paid for by the proceeds of the welfare payment. Again, this is not intended to be punitive but rather a means to get folks back to being productive.

As I have stated before every person who drives a vehicle, regardless of where they are employed has a duty and therefore a “debt” to society to avoid drugs. So why should we test welfare recipients and not everyone else?

 

[vz71]

you never know if you will be on one of those lists and have to leave your warm bed to go get blood drawn before you get help.Alcohol test:12Mil vile used for blood draws alot involved,many people are on certain meds that can give false positive readings,alot of people in areas of the US that use drugs to treat terminally ill patients. Beleive me your intentions may be good but the outcome will be disasterious.It’s alot deeper then you could imagine.leave well enough alone,if you want to do something for them PRAY:thumbsup: Nancy

God forbid that we should treat criminal behavior as criminal.

 

[bilop]

You have got it all wrong. Just because they can shop, clean or cook for themselves doesn’t mean they can handle the stress of a job. And until such time as they are able the funds should not be cutoff. There are many like myself who can do all the other stuff but even while on medication tried job after job and couldn’t handle it. Without Social Security disability I would have been homeless which is unacceptable when I have broken no law. And I would never have opposed drug testing because I would have come up clean every time having never done drugs. My proposal is that noone, even those earning their living, have a right to drug use and therefore everyone should be randomly tested.

Stress? I’m talking about picking up some litter. Or helping an old person in their neighborhood by doing their shopping or cleaning their house. That should be no more stressful than shopping or cleaning for yourself.

I believe very much that the dignity of labor, and being a positive contributor would improve the outlook and lives of even those suffering mental issues. The best way to improve your own attitude and happiness is to help someone less fortunate.

God Bless

 

[Cristiano]

No one has a “debt” to society to avoid drugs anymore than they have a “debt” to avoid skydiving, motorcyle riding or even cigarette smoking…

To owe does not automatically imply debt! As members of society we owe to society itself obedience to the laws. Drugs are illegal, skydiving is not.

…One who collects unearned dollars from the public coffers does have a debt…

Not true, there is no debt. The government does not have the expectation to get that money back, it is not a contract.

 

[goofyjim]

Stress? I’m talking about picking up some litter. Or helping an old person in their neighborhood by doing their shopping or cleaning their house. That should be no more stressful than shopping or cleaning for yourself.

I believe very much that the dignity of labor, and being a positive contributor would improve the outlook and lives of even those suffering mental issues. The best way to improve your own attitude and happiness is to help someone less fortunate.

God Bless

And when they have no income who is going to provide their housing. And what about medical benefits for the disabled. This overconcern about hanging on tot eh almighty dollar earned intsead of paying taxes is laughable. I could claim that all government spending is a waste and therefore shouldn’t pay any taxes. But at least I have the common sense to realize that ain’t so. And there is just as much benefit to keeping people housed and off the streets as there is to having highways and national defense. These people are not lazy. But just because they can perform certain activities of daily living doesn’t mean they can do labor. It’s a whole different ballgame.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

God forbid that we should treat criminal behavior as criminal.

Pardon You but most welfare recipients are down to earth human beings not criminal.Look at all the people out of work in this country right now watch the news and you’ll see that it isn’t going to get any better What should we do exterminate all those criminals???Proberly draw their blood while their in the food cubbard?

 

[ggaulin]

Then perhaps you could point out, without taking a selective quote from the Gospels, something more substantal than the issue of the talents. I have no question that Christ wants all to use their God given gifts. You seem to be presuming that everyone has a gift - a talent - for working productively. My limited experience is that there are any number of people who simply cannot hold a job. It is also my limited experience that the Church’s attitude is not that anyone should have anything withheld based on work ethic, but that their basic needs must be met whether or not we judge them “worthy”, or to use your term, a “sponge”.

and if someone did not measure up to your standards, I will lay dollars to donuts you fired them. I do not object to you firing them; but it would be beyond simplicity to presume that they were simply lazy.

You might want to pull out the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see how the Church responds to the poor. It is a bit different than you do.

I do not mean to be sharp, but I will explain: I grew up with ADHD, and a “tape” running through my head that I was lazy. It wasn’t until I was 42, and had a long conversation with a boss, that I finally received partial confirmation that I wasn’t lazy - his comment was that my work ethic was outstanding, just that my organizational abilites suffered. It was another 8 years before I finally figured out what I had was ADHD. I always had to fight the ADHD, but had no clue what my battle really was.

And I was never on welfare. But it taught me a lessong: we label many people. Just because we give them a label doesn’t mean that our analysis was correct. I have friends who, like me, were in Viet Nam. Two of them suffered, and still do to this day, with PTSD. It is all too easy for somone who has never suffered from that, to say “That is all in theiir head; they just need to get over it.” They are right - it is in the head of the person who is still trying to deal with the realities of war. But to say “they just need to get over it” is an abject failure to understand the reality of that person. They are crippled - it just happens that instead of having a leg blown off, they have had their mental stability destroyed.

I am not excusing each and every person who may be on welfare. However, the reality (and reality is not about political correctness - which is all too often a denial of reality) is that many of them are simply incapable of holding down a job. It is all too easy to sit back and dismiss them as lazy. Some may be. Many are not. And the Church’s approach through its “welfare” system is not to judge them but to try to help; not to qualify them, but to deal with an open hand. The paraphrase is that the left hand should not know what the right hand is doing. The Church, through Catholic Charities (among others) has training programs, drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, assistance through money, food, clothing and shelter. But it does not judge the “worthiness” of an individual by whether or not they participate in, or “graduate” from such programs.

First off, quoting Jesus in Matthew’s gospel is quite substantial, IMO.

I never meant to suggest that there is no poverty or need. I never wanted to infer that public assistance is inappropriate. Quite the contrary, for those who genuinely need it, it should be provided. Still, the thread has to do, not with abolishing public assistance, but making those who rely on public funds accountable to society. Everyone receiving such assistance is not beyond working or being productive. The system often creates a disincentive to work. Some will see more dollars collecting welfare than flipping burgers. The point is, for me, if they are on drugs, there is a far greater liklihood that they will never get off of welfare. That is not good for the taxpayer, that is not good for society and it certainly is not good for the individual.

One last thought…no one needs to measure up to my standards, we all need to measure up to God’s standards, hopes and expectations. Or at least we need to make every effort. It would be pretty hard to do that if we are using drugs and collecting welfare.

 

[Cristiano]

Guys, this thread is about drug testing for welfare recipients and not about the good or evil of welfare.
The two are quite different topics because people if favor/against the first may or may not be in favor/against the second. If we mix them we are going to have 4 different conversations going on.

 

[pnewton]

2 Thessalonians 3:10 “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”

What would Jesus do? St. Paul thought those unwilling to work should starve. Sloth is, after all, a mortal sin.

However, I do not think drug testing will ever be affordable or beneficial. Even drug us does not prove one way or another if the person is employable. It would waste money and accomplish nothing.

 

[ggaulin]

To owe does not automatically imply debt! As members of society we owe to society itself obedience to the laws. Drugs are illegal, skydiving is not.

Not true, there is no debt. The government does not have the expectation to get that money back, it is not a contract.

After further review, I agree with you on both points. I stand corrected. Thank you…

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

That’s true and there are alot of alcoholics who never miss work and druggies too. I realy dont think it has anything to do with welfare (mabe watching COPS too much?)

 

[ggaulin]

That’s true and there are alot of alcoholics who never miss work and druggies too. I realy dont think it has anything to do with welfare (mabe watching COPS too much?)

As an employer, I expect people to come to work on time and sober. Suggesting that someone arrives at work stoned is OK as long as they weren’t late won’t cut it.

I have never had a situation where someone who had a drug or alcohol problem ever performed to expectations. If I knew of a job applicant that was a drug or alcohol abuser but had a perfect attendance track record, I would not consider them for hire.

I am not sure that people on welfare are any more inclined to take up drugs than anyone else, but I do think a lot of people on welfare got that way because of drugs…

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

As an employer, I expect people to come to work on time and sober. Suggesting that someone arrives at work stoned is OK as long as they weren’t late won’t cut it.

I have never had a situation where someone who had a drug or alcohol problem ever performed to expectations. If I knew of a job applicant that was a drug or alcohol abuser but had a perfect attendance track record, I would not consider them for hire.

I am not sure that people on welfare are any more inclined to take up drugs than anyone else, but I do think a lot of people on welfare got that way because of drugs…

And your proberly right but are you saying that if you knew someone drank at home and was an alcoholic you wouldn’t hire him or her? Even if they had a perfect attendance record?

 

[Nepenthe]

I would argue quite the opposite, having grown up in and still being close to some desperately impoverished people. Pile enought tons of life’s bricks and concrete on a person, and something will at least snap, if they do not die in the first place, and the terrible pain, and yes the shame of being so trapped in there pathetic condition, I understand all to well how the cycle works.

I myself was such a person for quite a time, and I was too rigidly determined that I could and should bootstrap myself up - but it didn’t take long for me to realize I was stuck in the gutter for a long while, starving and terrified, and yes, I turned to drugs, both to ease the physical and mental agony and despair, and to give me a sense of stamina in order to barely survive. and most fortunately, I had learned to accept the kindness and hospitality of others, complete stranger - like people in what some call ‘slums’ seeing me barely gaunt and barely stumbling, say hey! as they went to go pick up their mail, “Please do come in - I’m making a big ol’ breakfast, and YOU look like you should eat all you can pack on, right away!”

I will never forget those people and their sheer open kindness and charity. And so I survived another week, and kept my spirits from sinking beneath the leaden tide.

Most of the people of poverty are very deeply moral, and often very seriously devout people, but it is a hard, hard life, even when you have family and friends around you. I did not, at least at first, and I was fortunate indeed to meet good people who weren’t worried about my lack of melatonin, and realized that I didn’t even notice theirs, except on both all our parts, having fun trying on clothing and other fun stuff. We were trying to survive, and help each other to - not always pretty, but with moments of true brother/sisterhood and the closest thing i can think of a what so many describe as ‘churchly’ experiences and inspiration.

So keep your pantyhose on until you’ve walked a mile in those shabby shoes, if you are fortunate enough to have shoes let alone pantyhose, okay?

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I would argue quite the opposite, having grown up in and still being close to some desperately impoverished people. Pile enought tons of life’s bricks and concrete on a person, and something will at least snap, if they do not die in the first place, and the terrible pain, and yes the shame of being so trapped in there pathetic condition, I understand all to well how the cycle works.

I myself was such a person for quite a time, and I was too rigidly determined that I could and should bootstrap myself up - but it didn’t take long for me to realize I was stuck in the gutter for a long while, starving and terrified, and yes, I turned to drugs, both to ease the physical and mental agony and despair, and to give me a sense of stamina in order to barely survive. and most fortunately, I had learned to accept the kindness and hospitality of others, complete stranger - like people in what some call ‘slums’ seeing me barely gaunt and barely stumbling, say hey! as they went to go pick up their mail, “Please do come in - I’m making a big ol’ breakfast, and YOU look like you should eat all you can pack on, right away!”

I will never forget those people and their sheer open kindness and charity. And so I survived another week, and kept my spirits from sinking beneath the leaden tide.

Most of the people of poverty are very deeply moral, and often very seriously devout people, but it is a hard, hard life, even when you have family and friends around you. I did not, at least at first, and I was fortunate indeed to meet good people who weren’t worried about my lack of melatonin, and realized that I didn’t even notice theirs, except on both all our parts, having fun trying on clothing and other fun stuff. We were trying to survive, and help each other to - not always pretty, but with moments of true brother/sisterhood and the closest thing i can think of a what so many describe as ‘churchly’ experiences and inspiration.

So keep your pantyhose on until you’ve walked a mile in those shabby shoes, if you are fortunate enough to have shoes let alone pantyhose, okay?

God has richley blessed you,through all the horror you went through and who could tell it better,than someone who has walked the walk.Love is the key 1Cor:13 Thank You for the truth.Love of Christ nancy

 

[goofyjim]

2 Thessalonians 3:10 “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”

What would Jesus do? St. Paul thought those unwilling to work should starve. Sloth is, after all, a mortal sin.

However, I do not think drug testing will ever be affordable or beneficial. Even drug us does not prove one way or another if the person is employable. It would waste money and accomplish nothing.

Exactly my point. Those who are “unwilling” to work, no those who “can’t” work. A disability does not mean sloth.

 

[Eggnotz]

Not true, there is no debt. The government does not have the expectation to get that money back, it is not a contract.

That is the mindset of government. They don’t spend their own money. They don’t have to create and run a business in order to produce something out of nothing. To them it falls from the sky. Politicians go to work and spend someone else’s money then actually feel good about themselves for having done so! Interesting.

If you want to impress anyone, give your own money to the poor as we Christians are commanded to do.

The simple fact is that when the number of people taking from the system in all forms exceeds the ability of the government to tax people, borrow from the Chinese or pay for the ink Bernanke’s printing presses are gulping, the party will be over.

What will happen to the less fortunate then?

Asking someone to pee into a bottle in exchange for money that someone else worked for is not tantamount to disregarding the needs of the poor. That is a red herring.

 

[Nepenthe]

But were are, explicitly, speaking of the government and human rights in this there, as see the big bold letters of the topic. If you don’t think that turning in a bottle of your liquid rented-beer or juice regularly is demeaning, by all means go ahead, although even that will involve nurses, analysts and bunnysuited hazmat people for the disposal of this fluid bounty you are so proud to have donated to them, should they take it seriously at all, rather than laughing at you and telling you to dump it down the urinal, and cracking up!

On the other hand, people who need welfare have committed no crime for the purposes of this argument than the ‘crime’ of poverty. They are not * criminals*, you classist - and I might add, your position has the brimstone whiff of racism about it as well, however many bows and wingnobs you dress it up in too. And if they aren’t caught doing anything illegal (like harming themselves and others, especially in the case of the caring for small children), why in the world should they be treated as if they were, like someone on probation for drug violations or in the first stages of recovery, which is an entirely different kettle of fish?

Believe me, wealthy people with drug habits are far bigger and more reckless consumers of their drugs of choice - I know because I have seen them many, many times, often buying several thousands of dollars worth of cocaine, heroin, or what have you, or doctor-shopping and committing fraud with the feeling that they are above such laws like, say, Rush Limbaugh. Poor people could never afford, even at the cost of those around them, anything like such sheer feckless gluttony and utter disregard for both the law and the people to whom they are responsible.