pole-Should we drug test welfare recipients

[OUHOMER]

So, I get into an discussion with a friend about folks failing pre employment drug test. What started the discussion was, a lady had come into apply for a job. They were going to give it to her. She was excited until they told her she had to pass a drug test. She said screw it she got a better deal drawing welfare anyway.

So what are your thoughts

[Penguin]

I doubt it's even possible. Who will pay for the tests? Who will administer the tests? Does everybody get tested? How often?

Looks like we'd spend millions for the tests and to hire people to do all of the extra work.

[OUHOMER]

Now that you mention it, Its creating jobs. it needs to be put in the stimulus package.

If you kick 25% of the folks out it would pay for itself in no time.

[Viking Kitten]

I think we should pay them extra if they agree to be on birth control.

[goingoneight]

... and ride the bus.

[Scott D]

considering how little faith so many here have for the government to do anything on that large of a scale, I'm sure they'd manage to screw it up royally.

[LilSooner]

I think you should have to take a test. If you pass the test you keep to keep your reproductive organs. If you fail well, no more 14 chittlens running around.

What do I win.

[sooner KB]

So a person that gets laid off of work should suffer because he or she chooses to do something that doesn't harm anyone else such as smoking a joint in the privacy of his or her own home? Why? Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

I just don't see what one thing that has the purpose of providing temporary assistance to people who lose their jobs has anything to do with drug use.

[SoonerBorn68]

So a person that gets laid off of work should suffer because he or she chooses to do something that doesn't harm anyone else such as smoking a joint in the privacy of his or her own home? Why? Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

Yeah, I'm paying for it--and said person should be spending his money on food, shelter, utilities etc.

You know, the repsonsible thing to do.

[Ace]

How about a drug test for anyone who needs any type of public assistance whatsoever. Need the fire department...drug test.

kidding folks.

[8timechamps]

Sure, why not? You have to get drug tested for most jobs.

Just take the cost of the test out of their first check. If you don't pass, then you don't have to pay. Think of the savings in the long run.

[SoonerBorn68]

Oh, and doobage is against the law. I forgot that small insignificant point.

[OUHOMER]

So a person that gets laid off of work should suffer because he or she chooses to do something that doesn't harm anyone else such as smoking a joint in the privacy of his or her own home? Why? Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

I just don't see what one thing that has the purpose of providing temporary assistance to people who lose their jobs has anything to do with drug use.

what if it's not pot, what if it's meth? where do you draw the line?

[sooner KB]

Yeah, I'm paying for it--and said person should be spending his money on food, shelter, utilities etc.

You know, the repsonsible thing to do.

I see what you're saying, but drugs stay in your system for a while, which means anyone can be unexpectedly laid off (especially with the current recession), do the "responsible thing" and stop doing drugs, and still not be able to get assistance.

[SoonerBorn68]

Sounds like that person would need to wait until they could pass.

[sooner KB]

Sounds like that person would need to wait until they could pass.

It takes marijuana up to a month to leave your system. Not having any income for a month could be devastating for a single mother. A good compromise may be to start giving the individual welfare, and then do the test one month later.

[SoonerBorn68]

How 'bout, tough luck--that's the chance you take by doing illegal drugs.

[stoopified]

Drug test everyone who gets money from the government,including ALL members of government.Ted Kennedy would be out on his arse because he has been under the influence for 40+ years.

[Vaevictis]

What do I win.

A free tubal ligation.

[sooner KB]

How 'bout, tough luck--that's the chance you take by doing illegal drugs.

Once again, why should we punish people for doing something that doesn't harm anyone else? It's funny how conservatives say they are all for "small government" and for government "getting out of people's lives" but want the government to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

If you think drugs are immoral, than fine, don't do them. If you want to teach your children about the dangers of drug use, fine. Some drugs are very dangerous and do destroy lives. Just don't let your authoritarian personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality) cloud your thinking and persuade you that the government should be in the business of regulating "morality" and should be telling people that are down and out "tough luck" for not conforming to your own (subjective) belief system.

[olevetonahill]

So a person that gets laid off of work should suffer because he or she chooses to do something that doesn't harm anyone else such as smoking a joint in the privacy of his or her own home? Why? Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

I just don't see what one thing that has the purpose of providing temporary assistance to people who lose their jobs has anything to do with drug use.

Dude If a person is doing Drugs on the Job , hes prolly Fired .
There's a diff. between Welfare and Unemployment .

[OUHOMER]

i noticed he didn't answer my question,

What if it's not pot, what if is meth.

Ok, how about if you do test them, they come up positive, you tell them ok, we will pay you for 30 days, then we test again. If it positive you are out,

[proud gonzo]

Once again, why should we punish people for doing something that doesn't harm anyone else?
How is not giving someone free money punishment?

[Harry Beanbag]

So a person that gets laid off of work should suffer because he or she chooses to do something that doesn't harm anyone else such as smoking a joint in the privacy of his or her own home? Why? Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

I just don't see what one thing that has the purpose of providing temporary assistance to people who lose their jobs has anything to do with drug use.


This thread is about Welfare, not Unemployment Insurance, right?

[Harry Beanbag]

considering how little faith so many here have for the government to do anything on that large of a scale, I'm sure they'd manage to screw it up royally.


I'm sure they would. And it would cost 4x what it should.

[sooner n houston]

Once again, why should we punish people for doing something that doesn't harm anyone else? It's funny how conservatives say they are all for "small government" and for government "getting out of people's lives" but want the government to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes.
Ok, I guess its not like they are wanting to take money from the government or anything, right! Oh, wait, yes they are. So screw em. Until they can pass a drug test I would not give anyone a dime of welfare (Paid for by you and me)!


If you think drugs are immoral, than fine, don't do them. If you want to teach your children about the dangers of drug use, fine. Some drugs are very dangerous and do destroy lives. Just don't let your authoritarian personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality) cloud your thinking and persuade you that the government should be in the business of regulating "morality" and should be telling people that are down and out "tough luck" for not conforming to your own (subjective) belief system.

Again, they want money from us, they can obey the LAW.

[SoonerBorn68]

Once again, why should we punish people for doing something that doesn't harm anyone else? It's funny how conservatives say they are all for "small government" and for government "getting out of people's lives" but want the government to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

If you think drugs are immoral, than fine, don't do them. If you want to teach your children about the dangers of drug use, fine. Some drugs are very dangerous and do destroy lives. Just don't let your authoritarian personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality)cloud your thinking and persuade you that the government should be in the business of regulating "morality" and should be telling people that are down and out "tough luck" for not conforming to your own (subjective) belief system.

It's funny how you were trolling for opinions & when I give mine you decide to try to change it. Forget it. It's also funny how you start to attack conservatives in general and call me an "authoritarian personality". You're just a whiner...but, but.

My judgement's not clouded. Drugs are illegal. You can't get past that. What you're asking is that the government, and all the taxpayers, act as enablers. It's not my belief system, it's the law.

[SoonerBorn68]

I notice too kb, there's only one person who voted for not drug testing & that would be you. That means (at this point in the poll) it's 20 to 1 for drug testing. It sounds like there's a lot of taxpayers who don't want to finance someone else's drug habit.

[TUSooner]

I think you should have to take a test. If you pass the test you keep to keep your reproductive organs. If you fail well, no more 14 chittlens running around.

What do I win.

You win the Heinrich Himmler Prize, a one-way train ride "to the east."

[TUSooner]

NO.
I think drug testing is appropriate - IF EVER -only where there is at least a "reasonnable suspicion" of drug use and a risk of danger. That goes for everybody except maybe military and high security types. It's also not a really accurate indicator of impairment, danger, or other problem, especially where MJ is concerned, because that stuff is stored in the body for a month or longer. Drug testing - especially in the proposed context - is little more than a proxy test for other forms of "undesireableness."

Drug testing is fundamentally un-American. How do you think the patriots of our Revolution would have reacted to the Brits imposing drug testing requirements (assuming they were available :rolleyes: )? Can you say "Boston Pee Party"? It's especially funny when "conservatives" talk about drug testing, it's about the most anti-libertarian, socialist thing imaginable. Talk about "1984"!

[SoonersEnFuego]

Once again, why should we punish people for doing something that doesn't harm anyone else? It's funny how conservatives say they are all for "small government" and for government "getting out of people's lives" but want the government to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

If you think drugs are immoral, than fine, don't do them. If you want to teach your children about the dangers of drug use, fine. Some drugs are very dangerous and do destroy lives. Just don't let your authoritarian personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality)cloud your thinking and persuade you that the government should be in the business of regulating "morality" and should be telling people that are down and out "tough luck" for not conforming to your own (subjective) belief system.
Maybe you're missing the point. If they have money to buy drugs, then they don't need government assistance. They need to sort out their priorities. If the government is supporting them financially....yeah, I think it's ok to tell them not to do drugs ro else they'll not be getting assistance anymore. It's this whole idea of entitlement that is the problem.
"You just give me my money. It's none of your business what I do with it." Umm, I disagree. If you want me to give you money...taxpayer money, then is it so much to ask to have you not buy drugs with it? Geez. "Stay out of my life until I need something!"


Oh, and I like how you put the link to "authoritarian personality" like you're the smartest person in the room, fxxking idiot.

[CORNholio]

Once again, why should we punish people for doing something that doesn't harm anyone else? It's funny how conservatives say they are all for "small government" and for government "getting out of people's lives" but want the government to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

If you think drugs are immoral, than fine, don't do them. If you want to teach your children about the dangers of drug use, fine. Some drugs are very dangerous and do destroy lives. Just don't let your authoritarian personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality) cloud your thinking and persuade you that the government should be in the business of regulating "morality" and should be telling people that are down and out "tough luck" for not conforming to your own (subjective) belief system.
I see your point and agree about the "authoritarian personality". The government should not be telling people what's "best" for them when they are not directly harming anyone else. But on the other hand, when somebody is solely dependent upon the govt and all of its money for survival then that somebody should have to tuck in their shirt and drop the crack pipe.

[CORNholio]

If people want to pick themselves up and depend on nobody for assistance (the american way) then by all means nobody should tell them what to do with their lives. When somebody is dependent upon somebody elses generosity for survival, however, the charitable party should have a little say so in ensuring that they are not being taken advantage of.

[OUDoc]

It's really simple. If you need free money from my tax dollars, you shouldn't spend it on drugs.
If I'm giving you a car because you need a car to get to work, you don't sell it to buy a guitar or a PS3.

[TUSooner]

If someone is "reasonably suspected" of spending my tax dollars on sh*t then they need to be accountable, by testing or any other means, but as a prerequisite for sustenance, no testing. It's true, after all, that one does not have an unlimited entitlement to the public's charity.
Of course, we don't have to give anyone sustenance or charity at all if we don't want to.
But I still say drug testing is fundamentally contrary to principles of a free society.

[MojoRisen]

what if it's not pot, what if it's meth? where do you draw the line?

I can't speak for the entire country, but in Charlestown WV, the whole town was pretty depressed and I had met some folks on welfare who basically teamed up to pay rent, food etc. They lived pretty well, but they definitely hit the pipe like it was going out of style, and Meth and Crack run rampant in those areas. I would be willing to guess over 50% smoke weed, and 20% or more smoking the meth or crack here and there.

I just don't see it as being feasable to test all the people on welfare- however they need to have some transition on that program so that it is not a career choice. We just can't allow people to be dependant on welfare for their entire lives because they decided that was easier/safer/more consistent than reality.

[CORNholio]

But I still say drug testing is fundamentally contrary to principles of a free society.

I agree to the extent that mandatory drug testing on citizens is absolutely wrong. But these people are voluntarily applying for assistance. It's just a little insurance for the rest of us.

[Scott D]

see, I chose not to vote because you didn't give an option for "No, because the government would manage to screw the testing up like everything else."

[MR2-Sooner86]

For starters I say we cut the welfare system in half, at least. I remembered when I worked at a grocery store and saw all the lowlifes coming in with their Food Stamp cards and welfare checks.

Now here's my argument for people who are against this drug testing.

Your next paycheck I want you to take $100 out and give it to a guy who is a known pothead and doesn't have a job and tell him to use the money to "better himself" and find work. Now, I want you to give him $100 every month from YOUR PAYCHECK and keep doing it until the guy cleans up.

That's all welfare is people, taking money from you and giving it to jackass. And they are jackasses. I know, I know some of them are people down on their luck but it's that 99% that have to screw it up and give the 1% a bad image.

Oh what to do here?


Once again, why should we punish people for doing something that doesn't harm anyone else? It's funny how conservatives say they are all for "small government" and for government "getting out of people's lives" but want the government to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

So even though it's illegal people can do what they want in their homes?

What if a guy has the go ahead from parents and sleeps with 12 year olds in his house?

Families involved in incest?

Bestiality?

Cooking your own meth?

How about people with "graphic material" on their computers? It's their computer and they can look up whatever they want on their computer right? Huh?

[StoopTroup]

I think I should get a $12,000.00 check at the end of every year for not doing drugs...whether I'm working or not. :D ;)

[NormanPride]

If someone is "reasonably suspected" of spending my tax dollars on sh*t then they need to be accountable, by testing or any other means, but as a prerequisite for sustenance, no testing. It's true, after all, that one does not have an unlimited entitlement to the public's charity.
Of course, we don't have to give anyone sustenance or charity at all if we don't want to.
But I still say drug testing is fundamentally contrary to principles of a free society.

This is a very good point, and I would agree normally. Fervently, I agree with the concept. I would love to be a completely "free" society, but it's just not the way things are anymore. We have give up some of our freedoms to give help to those less fortunate. Heck, welfare in itself is a mild form of communism.

I really think the line between unemployment and welfare should be more distinct. If you want to live off the government, fine. But be prepared to give up something for it.

[soonerboomer93]

It's really simple. If you need free money from my tax dollars, you shouldn't spend it on drugs.
If I'm giving you a car because you need a car to get to work, you don't sell it to buy a guitar or a PS3.

what kind of car is it?

[SoonersEnFuego]

what kind of car is it?
Eeeeeeeasy, Killer. :D :D

[yermom]

my main issue is that someone could be keeping themselves from getting a job because of not being able to pass a drug test

if you want to be a pothead, fine, just pay for it yourself

i don't think it's "authoritarian"

[chisdavis]

Drug testing is a tremendous waste of money.

[SoonerBorn68]

So are most people who are long term dependents of the gubment.

[yermom]

yeah, make them pay for it :D

[SoonersEnFuego]

Drug testing is a tremendous waste of money.
Well, we officially know who is a druggie now.

[OUDoc]

what kind of car is it?

http://www.anniemayhem.com/blog%20pics/WildCar.jpg

[yermom]

i totally posted a pic i took of that car here in 2007 :D

[Scott D]

shouldn't you be runnin' from the popo's mr. subaru driver?

[I Am Right]

No cigarettes, no cable, no flat screens, no beer, no 22" rims, and only one boyfriend.

[TUSooner]

I'VE GOT IT!!!
Test the people who want to GIVE OUT welfare. They may be the ones to worry about.

[NormanPride]

I'VE GOT IT!!!
Test the people who want to GIVE OUT welfare. They may be the ones to worry about.

Yeah, I want what they're having.

[yermom]

shouldn't you be runnin' from the popo's mr. subaru driver?

the cops don't see Imprezas ;)

[JohnnyMack]

the cops don't seem Impressed ;)

They aren't the only ones.

[yermom]

you don't want none

[sooner KB]

So even though it's illegal people can do what they want in their homes?

What if a guy has the go ahead from parents and sleeps with 12 year olds in his house?

Families involved in incest?

Bestiality?

Cooking your own meth?

How about people with "graphic material" on their computers? It's their computer and they can look up whatever they want on their computer right? Huh?

Notice I said people should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anybody else. Sleeping with 12 year olds is certainly harmful to those children. Beastiality is certainly harmful to animals. A dude or girl that wants to hit a bong after waking up in the morning? Doesn't hurt anybody.

I am puzzled by your last question. Of course watching porn should be legal. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.

I agree that meth should be illegal. I see how someone could say I'm contradicting myself with this one, but unlike pot, it is dangerous, harmful, bad for children in these homes, and destroys lives and communities. Of course, I think these people should be sent to drug rehabilitation centers instead of prisons (rehabilitation instead of punishment).

[sooner KB]

Also, to those who think it will save us a ton of money, note that welfare is about 0.6% of our annual budget. I just looked up some research that shows that around 20% of welfare recipients admit to using illegal drugs. If your main concern is the budget, there are plenty of ways we could reduce much more of the budget (such as some of our massive military spending) than cutting something like TANF that doesn't even account for 1% of the budget.

[SCOUT]

Also, to those who think it will save us a ton of money, note that welfare is about 0.6% of our annual budget. I just looked up some research that shows that around 20% of welfare recipients admit to using illegal drugs. If your main concern is the budget, there are plenty of ways we could reduce much more of the budget (such as some of our massive military spending) than cutting something like TANF that doesn't even account for 1% of the budget.

I would prefer to have a strong national defense rather than a baked nanny state.

You should post what .6% of our annual budget is in dollars. Percentages have a nice way of disguising the real magnitude.

My only other comment will be that if a real job can require a drug test, a job to do nothing should at least be able to do the same.

[olevetonahill]

Also, to those who think it will save us a ton of money, note that welfare is about 0.6% of our annual budget. I just looked up some research that shows that around 20% of welfare recipients admit to using illegal drugs. If your main concern is the budget, there are plenty of ways we could reduce much more of the budget (such as some of our massive military spending) than cutting something like TANF that doesn't even account for 1% of the budget.

Lets see , You say that smokin a Bong in the Morning aint hurtin anyone huh ? How about it keeping them from getin off their *** and Finding a job ??? So they can get the **** off welfare ?
Yea I think I see yer point , If everyone stays stoned we wont need a military. But who in hell is gonna make the Snacks ?:rolleyes:

[swardboy]

Once again, why should we punish people for doing something that doesn't harm anyone else? It's funny how conservatives say they are all for "small government" and for government "getting out of people's lives" but want the government to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

If you think drugs are immoral, than fine, don't do them. If you want to teach your children about the dangers of drug use, fine. Some drugs are very dangerous and do destroy lives. Just don't let your authoritarian personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality) cloud your thinking and persuade you that the government should be in the business of regulating "morality" and should be telling people that are down and out "tough luck" for not conforming to your own (subjective) belief system.

IMHO this is confusing conservatism with libertarianism....conservatives have a very strong sense of law and order, and will pay any price to achieve it.

And while we're at it: Isn't ANY law a legislation of morality? It defines what is right and what is wrong behavior in our society.

[MojoRisen]

I think the cost and liability to administer that many drug test's monthly would be more than the cost of Welfare itself or the cut in people on it because they are using drugs.

However, I would get rid of welfare all together in lue of Job training programs. Welfare better go bankrupt before social security does. That is all I would say on the matter.

If you want to pay people to sit on their arse and live off the government in lue of a National Security or Defense ought to be shot- clearly they don't remember what it cost hard working americans after 9/11 and people willing to work who could not. Welfare is not a permanent solution for people - please.

[yermom]

IMHO this is confusing conservatism with libertarianism....conservatives have a very strong sense of law and order, and will pay any price to achieve it.

And while we're at it: Isn't ANY law a legislation of morality? It defines what is right and what is wrong behavior in our society.

the classic use of morality is sex

it's legal to cheat on your wife, but it's not "moral"

[Animal Mother]

First we wizz test all that said welfarers should be tested. This sounds like a Dubya idea.... O.K. he had none. Darth Cheney idea.