Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients

[bobbbiez]

Some states are proposing giving random drug testing for all welfare recipients.

My personal opinion is bring it on. I look at it this way, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. ;D

For those that might feel it's unconstitutional, I say give it a break. There are plenty of places of employment that give random testing to their employees. Many employers require a drug test for one even to apply for a position, so why should someone who is not working and collecting welfare not be subjected to the same? If one feels they do not want to comply with the testing then don't apply for SS.

Plus, I would definitely love to see how many using my tax dollars have illegal habits I'm forced to support.

[Ralph]

GO FOR IT!!!

I think we would be shocked to see the numbers you speak of Bobbbiez.

[dgriffin]

Would the rationale that suggests drug testing for welfare recipients also apply to social security recipients?

[Ralph]

I think that would be have to be a different sphere Dave. Depends on why you are collecting SS.

My wife collects SS-Disability because of her Multiple Sclerosis. It took three years to establish it after her diagnosis and she had worked her entire life from age 16. A little different from some of those that grew up on the "public dole" and know no different other than how to manipulate the system.

With the meds she is on, she couldn't pass a drug test to save her life! LOL!!!

[frankcor]

Could you use the same logic to make drugs legal for those who are independently wealthy?

[dgriffin]

I hadn't thought about SSD, Ralph. I was thinking about older folks like myself who are collecting solely because of our age. Yes, I paid into the system.

Come to think of it, everyone in one way or another pays into "the system" with at least sales tax and property taxes or the portion of their rent that goes toward them.

There are indeed families of welfare recipients who grew up on the dole and will continue to do so. I leave that problem to the local welfare agencies, and I believe these tireless and much maligned welfare workers are doing the best they can, trying to get rid of the lazy while helping the needy. While drug testing might seem to be handing them an additional tool, I have to wonder if it would complicate their work acting as a hammer when a scalpel is needed.

Frank, evidently so. There is a higher proportion of drug-using poor in jail than drug-using wealthy.

But for me, drug testing those on welfare is not a good idea, because some day we'll all be on welfare. Seriously, of one type or another. It sets up one more condition one must meet to get some money (back) from the government. It's another intrusion into a citizen's private life. Oh, sure, it would seem justified. But justified isn't always right.

I happen to know a number of people on welfare from my volunteer work. Some smoke a little weed, sure. But overall, their lives are tough. Some just can't seem to get along in the world and have no diagnosis with which to qualify for disability, which wouldn't give them that much more each month anyway. I can't say any of them are outright bums, because most of them would rather have jobs they could handle and responsibilities they could meet. Although, to be honest, their lives on welfare and food stamps and handouts wouldn't change much if they got and could hold entry jobs at Walmart.

I'm told that the revamping of welfare laws really did eliminate many of the moochers. For now, I'd leave the rest alone.

[Clipper]

Hell, I can kick in a few ounces a month. Are they going to send me a postage paid container in the mail? How about if I send them a quart to start with, and they can call me in four or five months when it is gone, and I will send another? I am new to SS, and never drew a welfare check.

[Swimmy]

I don't think it is unconstitutional as long as the drug testing is applied to all welfare recipients and the random testing does not turn into an unjust and unfair policy to deny those who would otherwise qualify. I certainly think it is fair for the government to put restrictions on how it spends its money. That's why I think it would have been ok for the government to put provisions into its bailout scam that cap executive bonuses, etc.

However, it's a privacy issue too. The government has no business being in my business. If I were on welfare and forced to give a drug test, I would refuse on account that I have not signed a HIPAA release form. The government has no business knowing my medications, e.g. vicodine, a painkiller that is often abused by drug addicts.

I have everything to hide. And the "if you have nothing to hide then you have no reason to be opposed" philosophy is very dangerous. By using that approach, Big Brother can kick in far more easily and far more invasive than it already has...

If you have nothing to hide, then you have no reason to argue against putting wall-sized monitors in your living room with a still shot of President Obama. It's just to make sure nothing illegal goes on in your home.

If you have nothing to hide, then you have no reason to argue against the systematic reduction of words in the English vocabulary to better control and reduce the population's ability to think on a higher level.

If you have nothing to hide, then you have no reason to read books. They're evil and give you thoughts that the government just doesn't need.

I would rather see the entire welfare system dismantled before we condone even more trampling on privacy issues in the name of justice and fairness.

[Ralph]

Dave & Swimmy....good points and I have to agree with you both in many respects.

I think the best way is to dismantle what we have and build a new system geared to the "needs of the needy" instead of the "wants of the wanting".

[frankcor]

The reason we have Miranda Rights is because police were trained to use the following line in questioning: "Why don't you want to talk to us? Are you trying to hide something?"

I think we should have a Miranda ruling for the 4th Amendment too for the times when an officer asks: "You don't mind if I take a look inside your car, do you?"

But don't get me started ...

[dgriffin]

Well, I'm getting ready for the Feds to begin mucking with the eligibility rules for my Social Security payments. Pretty soon, they won't want me to get stoned because I have a better chance of falling down the cellar stairs and winding up in the hospital at their expense, rather than killing myself in a car wreck, which would permanently remove me from the federal dole. Booze was OK with the Feds, because if I wasn't killed on the roads my liver would take me out before my normal actuarial date.

After that, the government will have my doctor read me a list of foods I need to know about. One column will be those edibles that will kill me outright, and they'll be labeled "Good For The Elderly On Social Security." The other column will contain prohibited foods, those that will no doubt land me in the hospital for a long expensive stay.

Finally, I'll be required to attend weekly Senior Citizen Life Re-Training sessions, which will include skydiving lessons, high speed motorcycle acrobatics and bus trips to New York City with drop offs at the subways.

[frankcor]

Maybe I should take up smoking weed. I could send an invoice to the government each month -- call it Libertarian Pacification Aid.

[concerned]

Walmart drug test everyone. I like the sign in the customer support area--We drug test all who apply and the tests are sensitive enough to pick up the smallest traces--if you have/are on drugs don't waste your tme applying for a job.

The new Drug laws in NYS might change the attitude about testing everyone on public assistance and medicaid because someone has to support these people when they are doing drug court time along with drug counseling.

[lucy]

You can't use the excuse well this person has it bad so they turn to drugs. You know what I didn't have a great childhood but I have job, mortgage, and a family. I'm not using drugs to get by because of my bad childhood.

[dgriffin]

Mar 31, 2009 10:02:29 GMT -5 @concerned said:

The new Drug laws in NYS might change the attitude about testing everyone on public assistance and medicaid because someone has to support these people when they are doing drug court time along with drug counseling.

Well, that points to the lie behind putting recipients in a position where they have to pass any kind of test to qualify for benefits. Society is going to find some way to take care of them, anyway. We don't send families or even individuals out into the stormy night to fend for themselves. Every person I've ever known living in a ditch in America has chosen that over assistance they don't want for one reason or another.
So....bottom line, we'll wind up supporting them anyway.