Mandatory Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients?

[Sheeniac]

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

I think that when you first brought up the topic of ‘can’t work’, you used the phrase emotional issues. I would classify bipolar, etc as MEDICAL issues. Being neurotic would be emotional, in my book.

 

[Sheeniac]

I ask again-If we require drug tests and they fail and repeatedly fail do we cut them off and allow them to starve to death?

Giving food and non-cash aid will prevent them from starving. Giving them cash subsidizes their addiction.

 

[Sheeniac]

I’ve been dealing with this issue since 1968 when I was licensed as an Air Traffic Controller by the FAA…and later when I was stationed in situations involving “Nuclear Surety”…and I tend to agree that they who object have something to hide… I’ve been subject to the rules for 40 years now…

I am a non-illegal drug user, and consider myself anti-drug. My first marriage was destroyed by a husband who hid drug use from me.

I am 100% against random drug testing (which I believe you are referring to above), and am against most mandatory drug testing as well.

Some of us object on philosophical principles.

 

[ggaulin]

Perhaps they should be given food and rent/utility vouchers rather than cash payments.

That’s actually a pretty good idea.

The goal of drug testing is to get folks off of welfare and living meaningful, productive lives. It really should not be understood as some kind of punishment for having to “rely” on public funds. Rather it is assistance in getting them to live productive lives.

At the same time there should be a stigma associated with receiving welfare when an individual can work. Sorry, but one should be ashamed of accepting a handout and there should be an underlying desire to get off. I am not sure that passion exists in any great quantity.

People in my grandmother’s generation were embarrassed to take welfare or food stamps and worked very hard to break away from this reliance. Too many recipients see welfare as an entitled way of life.

Someone noted that this is the greatest country in the world. It didn’t get that way by paying a bunch of freeloaders to do nothing all day.

Now before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I realize that there are instances where welfare has been money well spent. It really served to lift individuals up while they got their legs under them. Sadly, this is too often, not the case…

 

[Semajleahcim]

I am a non-illegal drug user, and consider myself anti-drug. My first marriage was destroyed by a husband who hid drug use from me.

I am 100% against random drug testing (which I believe you are referring to above), and am against most mandatory drug testing as well.

Some of us object on philosophical principles.

You mean you would mind your civil rights being violated? That’s crazy talk!
PEE IN THIS CUP NOW!

 

[Semajleahcim]

Really, it’s quite amazing how little most people seem to understand about the welfare system. In my experience, the recipients aren’t given a cash and told to “go crazy”. Mostly, they’re given a card similar to a debit card, which can only be used on food, or vouchers, which are only good for certain products. Government housing is a completely different issue, and if I’m not mistaken, is taken care of by a different sector of the welfare system. Most people don’t “go to the welfare store and get their drug monies”.

 

[jmcrae]

Giving food and non-cash aid will prevent them from starving. Giving them cash subsidizes their addiction.

I assume you mean that only those who have addictions should be treated this way. Or are you assuming that all poor people are drug addicts?

 

[vz71]

No am deadly serious. if we require mandatory drug testing what are the consequences for those who fail?

Those that repeatedly fail are committing a crime.
That gives the state authority to take the person into custody.

Now whether the sentence is spent in a hospital being treated for addiction and eventually released, or spent in jail I imagine would be up to the DA.
In either case, they will be fed.

 

[Semajleahcim]

Those that repeatedly fail are committing a crime.
That gives the state authority to take the person into custody.

what gives the state CAUSE to violate a persons right to not only illegal search and seizure, but also self incrimination?

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Really, it’s quite amazing how little most people seem to understand about the welfare system. In my experience, the recipients aren’t given a cash and told to “go crazy”. Mostly, they’re given a card similar to a debit card, which can only be used on food, or vouchers, which are only good for certain products.

yes, but in some states those cards are transferable. so they sell easy. if someone was addicted and wanted crack why not sell a $100 food card for a $20 crack rock?

also in some places if a store takes that card it doesnt restrict what can be bought on it. unless the law has changed recently louisiana residents can get beer on it.

granted i agree this is a batter system than a pure cash handout, but it still needs work.

 

[seremina]

I am a bystander in this conversation, but I had to speak up at this point. I completely agree that, as Christians, we are to give to the needy. But Welfare is not you giving to the needy. I pay my taxes, but I have also taken homeless persons in to my home on countless occasions. Sometimes they have absolutely taken advantage of our family, and made our lives miserable. Sometimes they have been able to get on their feet and move forward. It doesn’t change the fact that we are obligated to help when we can. We are blessed, and we share it. We have paid tuition for single mothers who need to learn to make a living. Bought supplies and layettes, and whatever.

I am not pointing these things out to put our family forward. Rather it is an illustration. Welfare is not charity. It is a system that is desiged to keep people unempowered and dependent. I was a single mother who worked her way through an undergraduate degree and medical school. I never utilized the welfare system, but I understand there are some who must. I am, praise God, now married and my children are grown. I hope they learned from the way they were raised; that you don’t ever give up, and when God blesses you, you share it.

In my practice, I’ve worked with an enormous number of welfare recipients. Some were using it as it was intended to be used, a step up. Many, however, use it indefinitely, in place of any effort to care for themselves and use the money intended to care for their children to obtain drugs.

I have no problem whatsoever with requiring people who receive taxpayers dollars to drug test. If they fail, they should be required to participate in mandatory rehab programs and supervisory interventions. No, don’t strike them from the roles…but don’t let them slide either. At some point, there must be accountability. BTW; government employees are subject to random drug testing.

If you really believe in loving charity…as do I and many of my friends and family…live like the brethren and practice it. Paying your taxes does not fulfill your Christian obligation to practice charity. Welfare is a government program, paid for with the tax dollars of all, not just those who share our beliefs. There is an obligation to utilize those funds appropriately.

Don’t mix the two concepts. Welfare does not equal charity. Not in today’s America.

Dora,

I have a thread request for you. Could you start a thread about how and where to find those that need charity? Its hard to tell these days. Some people are on welfare and though they get their clothes from Salvation Army [or similar secondhand shops], their clothes don’t look poor. So its gotten harder to tell and a lot of these people don’t do any shows, music playing, nor asking around for money for a loaf of bread, etc., you get the idea. Some don’t even go to Salvation Army nor other kinds of Soup Kitchens to eat.

With this kind of information and advice, we can all be better-enabled to spot the poor and give them our help. Its a thread I’d highly appreciate and think its long-overdue.

 

[otjm]

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

Quoting one line isn’t. If you read the Gospels as a whole, you would find that the text you have taken out of context is not about the poor and what they must do to earn society’s largess.

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.

Let’s try another direction. Have you ever worked for a charitible group that works with the poor? Worked with the homeless in a shelter? A soup kitchen? haqve you ever worked with someone who is or has been on drugs or alcohol?

And where do you get God’s standards, as if God says somewhere in the Bible that unless you work, you have no worth in His eyes? maybe I missed something.

I don’t think you have the moral acumen or insight to determine if someone who has a drug habit has the ability or lack of it to measure up to God’s standards. Or Maybe Jesus just had it all wrong. Seems he told the sinners to not sin any more; but He sure spent more time wtih them than he did with the Pharisees. In fact, the Pharisees were pretty regular in condemning Christ because he spent time with them.

 

[RobHom]

If you read on you will see that I know alot more about this subject then you could emagine.

You are making assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

Ive done nursing for over 40 years and phlibotomy,not to mention Mental health I am certified by the State for behavoir health with children and adults I worked with the elderly in hospitals at home in other settings,I brought up 4 children and had my share of problems,and I do know if you put a leash on an animal that has never been leashed before you take the chance of getting bit.I’m not arguing with you I am telling you to degrade people only makes them worst. Nancy

Your statement seems odd…because it would seem that you were approaching being argumentative, and made a direct shot at denigrating me for your benefit.

Your experiences are valuable, but where you might believe you have superior knowledge on the subject, it is somewhat apparent that you are myopic, and less knowledgeable then you think, where the subject is involved.

Not once have I advocated the use of D&A testing on anyone outside the realm of “safety sensitive” positions. While I personally would not have any objection to welfare recipients being checked, however I see it pragmatically as a waste of money…an unnecessary burden on the government, and the logistics of the issue would be abhorrent at best.

While I may work in the transportation industry, I am a Psyche Major, and have worked in the field, and have spent a rather great many years dealing with and being subjected to Drug and Alcohol Testing due to high security and safety sensitive positions that I have held. So, my knowledge on the subject is hardly “scant”.

 

[dkdempsey]

No. I think that plays into a stereotype that people who receive public assitance are drug users, lazy and and abuse the system. Not all of them do this. I receive government assistence and I don’t do drugs, lazy nor abuse the system. I know others who also receive assistence and don’t do such things.

 

[cargau]

Quoting one line isn’t. If you read the Gospels as a whole, you would find that the text you have taken out of context is not about the poor and what they must do to earn society’s largess.

Let’s try another direction. Have you ever worked for a charitible group that works with the poor? Worked with the homeless in a shelter? A soup kitchen? haqve you ever worked with someone who is or has been on drugs or alcohol?

And where do you get God’s standards, as if God says somewhere in the Bible that unless you work, you have no worth in His eyes? maybe I missed something.

I don’t think you have the moral acumen or insight to determine if someone who has a drug habit has the ability or lack of it to measure up to God’s standards. Or Maybe Jesus just had it all wrong. Seems he told the sinners to not sin any more; but He sure spent more time wtih them than he did with the Pharisees. In fact, the Pharisees were pretty regular in condemning Christ because he spent time with them.

Let’s start with the passage about the talents. It is quite clear that the master approved most of those that did the most with what they were given. It seems pretty obvious that drug use impairs ones ability to perform in a manner that allows them to acheive their potential.

Yes I have served the poor. My objective throughout this thread has been for the poor to succeed and prosper, not relegate themselves to a life of accepting a handout. I can only think how I would feel if I were in that situation. I would do everything to break the cycle and become self sufficient. If you hand a man a fish, he eats for one day, if you teach him to fish, he eats for life.
In a real sense, getting the recipients of public monies to refrain from drug use provides the best opportunity for them to be productive.

God’s standards, the ten commandments, the beautitudes, the parables. It’s not a deep dark secret. Oh, and drug use is a sin and thus contrary to God’s will. Look it up in the catechism.

God loves everyone. I never suggested that anyone was worthless in God’s eyes. Yet, we are all sinners and all of us could grow in God’s love. Even you! You don’t have to insult me. We are just having a discussion. We may not agree about every point, but that is no reason to get personal…

 

[jmcrae]

If you hand a man a fish, he eats for one day, if you teach him to fish, he eats for life.

Assuming that it is not illegal to fish, or doesn’t require an inordinate amount of paperwork to start a fishery.

Part of what keeps people poor and dependent either on welfare or on the generosity of someone to hire them is the amount of red tape and paperwork it takes to start a business.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I voted “yes”. An attorney I know does termination cases for the Juvenile Office. A huge percentage of the time, parents found guilty of abuse and/or neglect are drug users. Adoptability of a child decreases with age and history of abuse. If a welfare recipient is using street drugs, then there are programs for the treatment of it, and the sooner it’s started, the better. If a recipient repeatedly fails to get clean, then serious questions should be asked whether that person should be allowed to keep custody of children.

Yes, I would also support drug testing for drivers’ licenses, and more.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

If you hand a man a fish, he eats for one day, if you teach him to fish, he eats for life.

i thought it was: “give a man a fish he has dinner for a day, teach a man to fish and make him late to dinner every day”

 

[RobHom]

No. I think that plays into a stereotype that people who receive public assitance are drug users, lazy and and abuse the system. Not all of them do this. I receive government assistence and I don’t do drugs, lazy nor abuse the system. I know others who also receive assistence and don’t do such things.

I’m not sure if you were responding to my post or not…but in any event please allow me to clarify something…

I do not for one second believe that the majority of people on assistance of any kind spend their money on illegal drugs. The reason for this is because… A. Drug users and alcoholics do not constitute a majority of the population, and B. The amount that people receive on assistance would hardly support a “habit”.

Nor do I believe that the majority of people on or off of assistance are willing to spend a bulk of their income on drugs or alcohol. The statement made on this site supports my statement:

ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/10/1450
RESULTS: The percentages of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or drugs were relatively small and consistent with the general US population and those not receiving welfare benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Although a minority of welfare recipients have alcohol or drug problems, substance abuse prevention and treatment services are needed among high-risk subgroups.

So, not only would invoking D & A testing on “welfare recipients” be a financial burden on society, but a logistical nightmare as well, but a pure waste of money and time…

Frankly, I would prefer to see Mandatory Drug and Alcohol testing done on anyone involved in a vehicular accident, not only a “Professional Driver” when one is involved. At present a car driver can have a serious accident…with injuries and even fatalities…and is not required to take either a drug or alcohol test, as it is considered an invasion of privacy!

 

[Eggnotz]

I voted “yes”. An attorney I know does termination cases for the Juvenile Office. A huge percentage of the time, parents found guilty of abuse and/or neglect are drug users. Adoptability of a child decreases with age and history of abuse. If a welfare recipient is using street drugs, then there are programs for the treatment of it, and the sooner it’s started, the better. If a recipient repeatedly fails to get clean, then serious questions should be asked whether that person should be allowed to keep custody of children.

Yes, I would also support drug testing for drivers’ licenses, and more.

Very well said.