Drug test people on welfare?

[Andrew Mitchell]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

what next, make them all wear the same coloured clothes bought with the clothes tickets so we can recognise them, straight up 1984

[fido123]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

Although I somewhat agree with this I think welfare should be 6 months of rent/groceries/necessary/transportation (metro passes etc), and after that 6 months you should be offered an option to be dropped off welfare or offered a minimum wage job with the government contributing to society.

[Xx{Midnight}xX]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

I agree with it.

If you can spend money on drugs you don't need welfare. Period in.

[alloyus]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

I support this for reasons already stated.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

as usual all the toffs of ffr hounding the most vulnerable, clasic misdirection by the goverment to divert peoples attention away from the big fish

[fido123]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

as usual all the toffs of ffr hounding the most vulnerable, clasic misdirection by the goverment to divert peoples attention away from the big fish

I believe welfare should be put in place for people who are capable of getting jobs, and don't have one. Other systems should be in place for other people but everybody I know on welfare is on welfare because they're too lazy to get a job. My friend's mom is 35 and quit working at a grocery store because she didn't like the tone her boss used with her and this other guy I know is just too high on weed and too busy with Maplestory to get a job and he's 25. Not saying all people are like this but it seems like a lot are. If you can't find a job after half a year with government assistance I don't really want to support you any more. People like the one's I have stated don't deserve my money.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

i know plenty of unemployed people willing to work but the jobs that the long time unemployed where traditionaly made to do are now all taken up by low skilled foreign eu workers who graft like **** for peanuts, its a real catch 22

[kommisar]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

damn immigrants!!

[Andrew Mitchell]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

bosses should get rid of the toffs in white shirts who spend all day at work chatting, surfing the net, and fagging it and fill the jobs with the men who are willing to work but are unemployed

[Reincarnate]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

My own views on the matter via a conversation I had with Lito on psychoangel's FB wall:

Me: It sounds good on the surface, but it's actually not a great idea in terms of its consequential ramifications.

Lito: I fail to see the ramifications in regulating subsidy the we, as a whole society of tax-paying citizens, pay for ensuring the money given isn't bring wasted.

Me: It's a violation of the Constitution, the drug usage rate among those on welfare isn't that much higher than those who aren't, the costs of the testing have to be factored in, and you have to figure that kicking a drug-user out on the streets isn't exactly saving money if that person goes into a downward spiral that results in tax-burdened jailtime, etc

Lito: 1. What adaptation of which amendment makes drug-testing unconstitutional? I hope you realize most (if not nearly all) jobs requires a drug-test and random employee screening thorough an employment period. If you researched on -why- specific individuals consider in unconstitutional, you'd find that a) those arguing against this are in a political positions where they're inclined to be against it anyway (as their respected party representative), therefore associating this bill as a first step towards many which could happen in the future (drug testing for medicaid/medicare/etc [unlikely to happen]); and b) are the people crutches on welfare the -are- doing drugs.

Lito: 2. Irregardless of your statistics, proven or not, reliable or unreliable source, it's still money that's TAXED given to them to -do- drugs -supposedly. I don't care if some rich celebrity does it, they paid for it and can afford. But if I'm personally forced to pay for someone else's chance to better their lives, I don't want my money wasted in recreational drugs.

Lito: 3. Jail is another political issue of it's owned and you can't fallaciously assume that's where everyone is going to end up if they dont have a constant income anyway.

Lito: 4. It would be more of an incentive for indiviuals to reduce or stop their usage of drugs in order to keep their paychecks. I don't see how that would cause them to continue on a "downward spiral"

Lito: 5. Typing this from a phone as yeah

Me: Fourth amendment. There is a difference between testing in the workplace (where performance standards and safety become sufficient justification for a "reasonable" search, and even here, it's questionable and has been open to fierce debate) and testing people who simply receive benefits at the expense of taxpayers. Considering the drug usage differential is not significant, where do you draw the line? Families receiving Medicaid? Police? Politicians? Students? Random drug searches have already been shot down in the past due to inherent lack of probable cause. This would all be much more costly in the long run. Being poor is not sufficient justification for having your rights suspended for the sake of propagating a right-wing myth that all welfare recipients are lazy, drug-using individuals (this is demonstrably not true).

Me: 2. Yeah, but you could say that of anyone who receives money from anyone else. How can you possibly control how people spend their money? People seem to have no qualms with working for a firm (and adding value to it) that funds someone else's drug habit higher up the chain, so why the fuss over tax dollars? Drug money in *general* is a problem, but targeting welfare isn't the answer.

Me: 3. The probability of getting into trouble skyrockets when you're not receiving any kind of income, and data supports this. The actual drug users will get into more trouble and rack up higher costs than are saved by not providing welfare.

Me: 4. It may be an incentive for some, but simply cutting off an addict's money supply doesn't magically cure their addictions, no matter if you're targeting alcoholism or chronic drug use.

Me: 5. Besides, under the way the law is framed currently, if you fail the drug test, you can choose someone else to be the beneficiary on behalf of the children. What's to stop the beneficiary from simply handing the money back over? This law does nothing but intrude on the honest, not solve the problem, and push higher costs through the individuals on the tail of the distribution. The only real winner would be the drug-testing firms and right-wing ideology.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

damn immigrants!!

lol eu-workers arn't immigrants

[Mans0n]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

Terrible idea, and a huge waste of money for what? To make someone lose their support of welfare because of an addiction? C'mon that's ****ing stupid. Plain and simple.

[Litholia]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

Yes.

Well with the small income that they do have, if they ARENT spending the money on food (because they have food stamps) what are they spending it on? I know it's not soap.

Edit: I am aware that there are a very good handful of people who are on welfare, and they need it. But if you can spend 20 dollars on some pills, you can spend 20 dollars to feed your 4 infants.

[devonin]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

Spending more money out of the budget on something that will absolutely cost more to maintain and implement than the savings of kicking some offenders off welfare just takes more money away from the people who actually need it.

[Aldentron]

Re: Drug test people on welfare?

Anybody who supports this has obviously never lived on welfare and is most likely typing from a cookie cutter suburban home.

yup

The people abusing the money (and don't try to act like nobody is abusing it, we all know that people do) need to be cut from welfare or have some of it cut at least. The government is basically paying for some people's drugs. That's why they're doing it.

well wat else does the govt pay for? id rather fund a pothead than a soldier

what about the millioneires not paying tax and all those people in offices browsing the web all day when they are supposed to be working arn't they abusing the money

ya

as usual all the toffs of ffr hounding the most vulnerable, clasic misdirection by the goverment to divert peoples attention away from the big fish

yup this forum reeks of wHiTe PpL PrObLeMz

also, like devonin said, the logic behind this is obv fukt, regardless of constitution.
yr spending money 2 prevent wasting money and for what? just 2 get sum junkies 2 kick the habit? ya rite, theyre just promoting the war on drugz.