This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Florida to require drug testing for welfare recipients
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
xaratherus
I'm stepping back from this because I'm getting heated about it. Suffice to say that even with parents who are on state-assistance programs (albeit not direct welfare assistance), I support this idea - and so do they.
Post by
Heckler
Heckler, are you parents currently on welfare?
That would depend on your definition of welfare, in addition, their situation has changed significantly since I lived at home (in ways that I have no desire to discuss). Regardless that has little to do with... anything.
Just looking for a little context on where you're coming from on the issue.
I don't really understand, you say you're for the law, but are arguing a lot about how bad it is...?
Anytime I said I was for the law, I was being sarcastic. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. Anyways, Xara is right, I am arguing almost completely out of emotion, so I'll just stop posting. Xara, you say you're not "implying" anything about welfare recipients, but yes, you are. This entire bill is based on a presumption about welfare which completely contradicts the function and purpose of welfare. Whatever it "fixes" has a more proper channel for fixation, and the simple fact that it has so much support reveals the weakness in both the current welfare structure, and the current drug enforcement structure.
Post by
ExDementia
Anytime I said I was for the law, I was being sarcastic. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. Anyways, Xara is right, I am arguing almost completely out of emotion, so I'll just stop posting. Xara, you say you're not "implying" anything about welfare recipients, but yes, you are. This entire bill is based on a presumption about welfare which completely contradicts the function and purpose of welfare. Whatever it "fixes" has a more proper channel for fixation, and the simple fact that it has so much support reveals the weakness in both the current welfare structure, and the current drug enforcement structure.
If a known drug addict came up to you asking for money to stay afloat while he finds a job, would you give it to him knowing full well he's not going to spend it on actually finding a job, but on drugs?
Also, yes it reveals the weaknesses of both structures, but this is helping to patch these things up. Do you know how many people abuse the welfare system? I wish I could see a statistic on how much government money has been spent on drugs and/or alcohol by the welfare recipients.
Post by
xaratherus
Xara, you say you're not "implying" anything about welfare recipients, but yes, you are.
No, I'm not. The implication of which you speak is that welfare recipients are more prone to use drugs, and the supposed evidence for that statement is that I support drug testing in exchange for continued welfare. Let me quickly prove the basis of that assumption wholly incorrect:
When you have a drug test in the Navy, if you tested positive, you would be kicked out, yes? Or at the very least you would be heavily reprimanded, and repeat infractions would result in a dishonorable discharge (or Naval equivalent), correct?
Does that drug test make you feel like a criminal? Based on the argument you're making, it should; every time they've given you that drug test for however long you've been in, based on what you've said you should be thinking that they consider you a criminal.
But that's obviously not true, because if it did, it would be utterly unlikely you'd still be in the Navy. Why stick with a group that thinks you're a criminal?
Instead, the drug test is a condition of your service/employment, and a condition to receive your pay from the government relating to your service. It's not an invasion of privacy, it's not an implication that you're a criminal - it's a safeguard against the military spending money on a person who is literally undercutting their productivity through drug use.
This is no different. I make no presumption, I am not implying anything, regardless of what you're reading into what I'm saying. The fact is that drug testing is standard practice for most jobs, and I see absolutely no reason why welfare should be any different - nor do I see anyone being painted a 'criminal' by it, save that they invalidly criminalize themselves in their own heads.
Post by
Heckler
If a known drug addict came up to you asking for money to stay afloat while he finds a job, would you give it to him knowing full well he's not going to spend it on actually finding a job, but on drugs?
From the government's perspective, that's not the right question to ask -- nor is a blanket "prove you're not a known drug user" policy the proper response.. Would I try to make sure that people didn't have access to drugs? Would I try to make sure that the assistance program they are collecting is designed in a way where questions like this aren't a problem? Those are more proper responses.
@xara:
My apologies for getting heated. I'll back off my high horse now. I just get really irritated at the way stereotypes against the proper role of government spread and propagate without people even realizing they're doing it -- and I shouldn't have put words in your mouth, nor made my argument as though I was the only one who didn't think all welfare recipients aren't scumbags. Truly sorry.
Yes the welfare system has problems, but at the same time, it has some amazing success stories. The baseline assumption that a drug test is completely valid as a prerequisite for these assistance programs reveals something both about the programs and about the drug control laws. Drug tests aren't required to get driver's licenses, to pay parking tickets, to vote, etc. And to repeat myself, from a purely economic perspective -- if the added cost of all the non-positive drug tests does not outweigh the savings from the positive ones, then this is an
increase
in taxpayer spending.
In order to support this idea, you must agree with the
assumption
that the drug buyers will not bypass the urine test in some way (much easier to do when a face
isn't
12 inches from the "stream entering the bottle"), and you will save more (by keeping the assistance out of their hands) than you spend on "proving" all the honest people out there arent drug addicts. That's the assumption I'm talking about.
I wish I could see a statistic on how much government money has been spent on drugs and/or alcohol by the welfare recipients.
I wish I could too. Your wish just proves my statement above about your assumptions though.
Does that drug test make you feel like a criminal? Based on the argument you're making, it should; every time they've given you that drug test for however long you've been in, based on what you've said you should be thinking that they consider you a criminal.
But that's obviously not true, because if it did, it would be utterly unlikely you'd still be in the Navy. Why stick with a group that thinks you're a criminal?
In a way it did, and that's one of the reasons I left the navy after six years.
Post by
ExDementia
If a known drug addict came up to you asking for money to stay afloat while he finds a job, would you give it to him knowing full well he's not going to spend it on actually finding a job, but on drugs?
From the government's perspective, that's not the right question to ask -- nor is a blanket "prove you're not a known drug user" policy the proper response.. Would I try to make sure that people didn't have access to drugs? Would I try to make sure that the assistance program they are collecting is designed in a way where questions like this aren't a problem? Those are more proper responses.
So they should just blindly hand over check after check to anyone who asks?
Welfare is not a right, it's a damn fine
privilege
and drug addicts very commonly abuse the crap out of said privilege.
Are you against employers drug testing their new hires? Like I said before, they are investing money in you, and they actually want to get something for their money. In the case of a business, it is a hard-working employee. In the case of the government, it is so you can get a job and support your family by your own right and contribute to the nation's economy.
The government (rightly so) has no interest in funding drug habits.
Also, every citizen should be expected to obey the countries laws at all times. I'll refer to my previous statement:
Don't do illegal things and you have nothing to worry about. Amazing how that works, eh?
Post by
Heckler
So they should just blindly hand over check after check to anyone who asks?
Welfare is not a right, it's a damn fine
privilege
and drug addicts very commonly abuse the crap out of it.
Are you against employers drug testing their new hires? Like I said before, they are investing money in you, and they actually want to get something for their money.
In a way I am. Drug testing every new applicant isn't cheap, the decision to blanket test every applicant says something about the companies presumptions of their target demographic. In addition, applying for a job is a choice, wanting to feed your kids isn't the same type of choice. Again, you're making implicit assumptions about the welfare system in general that are in complete concurrence with my arguments.
Don't do illegal things and you have nothing to worry about. Amazing how that works, eh?
No I totally agree, we should all be subjected to random search and seizure on the way to work each morning. After all, if you're not breaking the law... you shouldn't mind a quick 15 minute search of your person and belongings each morning (that was sarcasm again).
Your above statement is corrosive to the concept of personal privacy, responsibility, and liberty.
Edit: getting heated again, apologies. Ignore the sarcastic jab, but focus on the bolded part.
Post by
ExDementia
Ok, you're taking the example to ridiculous and irrelevent extremes. I'm waiting for the Godwin, honestly.
I'll give an example of how this applies to me:
When I was younger and stupider, I broke the law quite often. I got a speeding ticket, then a reckless driving ticket which I never paid. I got pulled over for not having a front license plate, the cop pulled up my file and saw I had several unpaid tickets and several court no-shows. He towed my car and took away my license.
The rebellious young me said "F^&* it" and drove anyway. For about a year I drove with no license, no insurance, and in a vehicle not registered in my name. I was paranoid all the time and cringed every time I saw a cop.
I ended up subconsciously despising cops and when I would hear about new methods of catching drivers without licenses or insurance I would get pissed and argue against them. That's an invasion of privacy, I thought. They can't just scan everyones license plates until they find on offender! That's bull%^&* and unfair!
Then I realized I could just get my *!@# together and just pay the fines and get my license back. So I did and I came to a facepalm-worthy realization:
Don't do illegal things and you have nothing to worry about. Amazing how that works, eh?
Now I don't care in the least that they are coming out with methods to fight these illegal activities because they don't effect me. If I just obey the law and do what I'm supposed to do, things work out much, much better. I don't have to worry about my work wanting my insurance information to drive during work hours, I don't have to worry about people asking to see my license for what ever reason. It's nice.
The same applies for this welfare issue. When you are on the wrong side of it, you understandably feel ill towards it. BUT when you are already doing things the way they should be done, you wouldn't even consider it an issue.
I completely understand where you are coming from, man. The driving thing was just one example, but I have felt the same way about tons of different things when I was getting into so much trouble. I hated it when they came out with stricter policies at my high school about fighting and ditching school because I did those things.
A lot
. But if I didn't, and just did things right like most of my classmates, I wouldn't give a crap!
Edit: getting heated again, apologies. Ignore the sarcastic jab, but focus on the bolded part.
No harm done, my friend :)
Post by
Heckler
The same applies for this welfare issue. When you are on the wrong side of it, you understandably feel ill towards it. BUT when you are already doing things the way they should be done, you wouldn't even consider it an issue.
This isn't completely true, and contains an assumption about the propriety of
my own
actions for having the view I have. Personally (as in, since I've been an adult), I've never used any assistance programs (unless you want to count my military paychecks, or the GI Bill for college), even though I could have if I wanted to (due to Native American blood). My stance has always been that assistance programs can only properly "end" when those who are entitled to them make the conscious decision to not seek them once they know they are no longer necessary -- I'm fine on my own, and therefore I've never sought or accepted help based on my ethnicity.
My objections have nothing to do with me personally, as I think that's an altogether silly way to come up with opinions on policy. And I stand by my statement that "if you're not breaking the law, you shouldn't mind being checked up on by the authorities" absolutely contradicts personal freedom and responsibility. It also says something about what you consider "proper" taxpayer dollar use versus "improper." At what point does enforcement become a net cost rather than savings? (hair follicle testing, more patrols, more liaisons, etc).
And why don't we require drug testing (or maybe add background checks, warrant/extradition scans, credit reports, etc) for more actions? Again I'll mention Voting, Driver's Licence, and I'll add Medicare, Social Security, filing your taxes, and calling the police. The simple answer is because it wouldn't be economical, right? And therein lies the assumption I've been harping on from the beginning.
Post by
ExDementia
Ok "random searches by the police just to check" is not at all comparable to
this at all
. That is
them
seeking
you
out and actually violating your rights.
In the welfare issue,
you
are seeking
them
out for assistance. They don't
have
to give you money, but they will if they think it will help you get on your feet and contribute to society in a positive way. If they feel like their
charitable
money is being thrown away and not used for it's intended purpose, they have every right to restrict who receives the help.
It's like someone coming for college aid and not spending the money on school. The party handing out the money has the right to make sure that person is going to spend the money on it's intended purpose, otherwise why would they want to give out the money? Do you see what I'm saying?
Post by
Heckler
Do you see what I'm saying?
I do, and my disagreement is in no way changed by this. There are welfare programs that don't simply cut a check (like WIC). The fix your suggesting is like aiming a fire extinguisher at the tips of the flames rather than the base. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say the drug testing all welfare applicants might reduce the incidence of welfare money being spent on drugs. But what about Twinkies? Alcohol? Cigarettes? McDonalds? Those won't show up on a urine test, though they're not "helping you get on your feet and contribute to society in a positive way."
My point is that the target of this "fix" is improperly aimed, and there are far better ways to go about remedying the problem -- ways that don't involve any "guilty until proven innocent" assumptions.
And I can agree to a small extent that welfare recipients are
seeking
help -- but there's plenty of situations where the choice is between starving children and not-starving children. I'd hardly call that a choice. And my analogy was more akin to Blanket Search Checkpoints than specifically targeted searches -- why not stop
every
driver on all the freeway onramps to verify they have the proper tread on their tires, no cracks in their windshield, smog check up to date, license and registration in order, seat belt on, etc. After all, you're
choosing
to take advantage of the government's roads, right? If you're not going to follow the rules, why should you be allowed to take advantage of the government's roads?
Why would that be silly? Because you would spend way more on enforcement than you would stop in violation. Unless you're willing to assume that so many drivers are breaking the law that it would work out as a net savings. You're perfectly willing to make that assumption about welfare recipients -- why?
Post by
ExDementia
I see the merit in your argument. I agree that there are plenty of other things that the money can be spent on, but drug use is a huge one. I think eliminating one of the biggest problems in that area is better than nothing, even if the still can spend the money on other things. They would just be less inclined to.
Also, I see your point about how while they are seeking help, they don't really have another choice. Most countries do not offer this service. It is still a privilege, and privileges are allowed to have rules attached to them. They are giving the money out, so they should be able to put what ever restrictions they see fit onto them.
Back to the college thing, scholarships are charitable donations, and have rules attached to them. The people offering the money can require the recipient to have a certain GPA and certain goals which the money will help them achieve. If they think their money isn't going to a good cause with a certain person, why would they want to do it?
Why would that be silly? Because you would spend way more on enforcement than you would stop in violation.
In that example, I agree. With the welfare issue, I do not. A huge, huge portion of welfare recipients are in fact, drug users. That's often the reason why they don't have a job in the first place. But here's what you aren't seeing with that argument:
The drug tests aren't being used to go out and try to catch criminals. When you take a drug test for a job, they don't expect you to take the test if you're on drugs. That would be stupid and a waste of time. The drug test is largely a tool to discourage drug users from trying. I know a friend of mine who went through several places to work until he found one that didn't do drug tests.
Yes the drug tests cost money, but not every drug user who wants the money will take the test because they know they'll fail, or they're scared to. And the ones who do take the test and fail; that $30 drug test is a hell of a lot cheaper than all the money the government would spend over the next year or so funding that persons drug habits.
This was not made in an effort to catch drug addicts, this was made in an effort to reduce the huge amounts of needless government spending on welfare recipients who abused it.
Post by
Heckler
. . . A huge, huge portion of welfare recipients are in fact, drug users. That's often the reason why they don't have a job in the first place . . .
I don't know where this information comes from, but it serves to crystallize the argument I've been making from the beginning. These are the types of assumptions that I would call offensive. If you can give me some hard data to prove that they're not just
assumptions
, maybe I'd change my tune. But at this point, what you just said is akin to saying "Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote, because
a huge, huge portion
of them are uneducated criminals" (Purposefully hyperbolic to draw a contrast between the offensiveness of the two statements -- I'm not trying to call you racist).
. . . that $30 drug test is a hell of a lot cheaper than all the money the government would spend over the next year or so funding that persons drug habits . . .
Another assumption that you're willing to make about one part of society, but not others. Another statement which perfectly demonstrates the improper and offensive assumptions I've been saying are at the root of your argument from the beginning. I suppose we agree?
Post by
ExDementia
Do you have statistics otherwise?
Google is amazing :) This was only a 2 minute search but
here.
For mothers who used cocaine, 59 percent received AFDC/TANF for at least 5 years and 75 percent experienced some period of welfare receipt. Although almost 20 percent of welfare recipients report recent use of some illicit drug during the year, only a small minority satisfy criteria for drug or alcohol dependence, as indicated by the short-form Composite International Diagnostic Interview.
Keep in mind, this is all that they know of. The problem is, it is impossible to really come up with a correct statistic.
Post by
Heckler
No, but that's my point. We're both coming at this without data, but you're assuming that a "huge huge portion" are drug users. Where does that even come from? At least my assumption is based on the "welfare recipient" sample being a statistical subset of the overall population, which definitely does not have a "huge huge portion" of drug users. Your assumption is that the welfare subset is somehow statistically different.. I would say the burden of proof is on you in this situation. I also don't have any statistical evidence that most black people aren't criminals, but I doubt I would be called upon to prove such a rational and obvious statement. with statistical data. The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the least probable assumption -- in this case, that's you (only because you said "huge huge portion" and not "slightly higher portion").
The sky is blue .
Post by
UnholyDeciever
My stance has always been that assistance programs can only properly "end" when those who are entitled to them make the conscious decision to not seek them once they know they are no longer necessary -- I'm fine on my own, and therefore I've never sought or accepted help based on my ethnicity.You have the impression that people on Welfare want to leave it and get a job. That is not what I get from the people I know what are on Welfare. They are all pretty lazy, while they may or may not be drug users they are still very useless to what society wants / needs. Also I think you are just talking in extremes that would never happen due to the "rights" we should have.
Post by
ExDementia
Found some statistics, check above. (they aren't great for either of our points, really)
I can see that we will never agree on this, but I am glad this bill was passed. Even if it helps only marginally, I am happier knowing my tax dollars are being better spent. If it were up to me, there would be much more strict restrictions for welfare. I would make it such a huge pain in the ass to actually receive the money, and do everything I can to weed out the ones who abuse this fantastic service I offer.
This isn't to catch criminals, it's to cut needless spending and to help chip away at how many people can afford the drugs in the first place. You have to start some where.
Post by
Heckler
Keep in mind, this is all that they know of. The problem is, it is impossible to really come up with a correct statistic.
Another point on which we agree. A quick google search of my own broke down the average expenses of welfare recipients. Most of their income is spent on Food and Shelter (54% according to the site). The rest is for "clothing, laundry, household supplies, transportation, furniture, appliances, and the occasional treat." So let's say the drugs fall under the "occasional treat" category for those that use drugs. It still seems like a huge assumption to me that this blanket policy of drug testing will end up being cost effective. (Say drugs are 10% of total expenses and X% use drugs -- how large does X have to be to make the program cost effective? And this isn't even considering the personal privacy / freedom concerns.)
If the law were modified in some way to only drug test people who had prior drug convictions say, or some other indicator that could be used to statistically argue that they deserve such treatment... I might support that. But my point from the beginning has been that economically, this is wrong; morally, this is wrong; and in terms of effectiveness at achieving the stated goal (properly used welfare dollars), it's wrong. In the face of all those things at least being plausible arguments, if you can still support the blanket test-everyone policy, then me and you simply have different views on Liberty, Freedom, and Responsibility.
They are all pretty lazy, while they may or may not be drug users they are still very useless to what society wants / needs.
Perfectly stating my point about offensive, improper, and incorrect assumptions which say more about the failure of the welfare and drug systems in general than they do about the recipients of welfare, even if they happen to be true.
Post by
ExDementia
As far as the morality of it, I'll just say this, which goes back to one of my previous posts:
I don't do drugs, so I wouldn't care about being tested. It's not a big deal to go pee in a cup, and if it gets me what I'm there for, why not? (This isn't the military, no one will be watching)
Please don't bring up the "Hey so then you'd be cool with police randomly searching you" argument again. It is invalid because that means they are seeking you out, not you seeking them out for help.
If you want help for something, you should use what you get to actually help.
Post by
Heckler
I don't do drugs, so I wouldn't care about being tested. It's not a big deal to go pee in a cup, and if it gets me what I'm there for, why not? (This isn't the military, no one will be watching)
Please don't bring up the "Hey so then you'd be cool with police randomly searching you" argument again. It is invalid because that means they are seeking you out, not you seeking them out for help.
The point about the Military style tests is that if they aren't done this way, they are much easier to fool. And if they're easy for bad people to fool, then what's the point? Keep the honest people honest?
And DUI checkpoints happen all the time. They don't involve "seeking" at all.
If you want help for something, you should use what you get to actually help.
I don't disagree. I disagree with
assuming
that they're not without any reason -- when your program does nothing proactive to prevent this in the first place.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.