drug testing people on welfare rant.....

[MinisterofDOOM]

I am willing to do so because I am hiding nothing.

This is a dangerous way to look at things. Sure, you happen to agree with these particular laws so you don't feel imposed upon by them. But what happens when a law gets passed that you disagree with? You might still have "nothing to hide" but suddenly it's an imposition. It has NOTHING TO DO with whether you have something to hide. It has everything to do with personal privacy being a right. This applies to EVERYTHING. Not just the topic at hand.

I agree that there's a definite issue with people using money that came partially from my pocket for the wrong purposes, but that goes way beyond drugs. And that's the REAL problem. Drugs, as has already been stated, are not the only way to abuse welfare funds. And not the most common either, I'd wager. So if you want piss tests, you'd better go for cameras in homes, meters on car odometers, checks on credit card usage, etc. Which is all ridiculous and all an invasion of privacy.

There's no doubt the world is full of scumbags who like to ruin everything for decent people. But the way to deal with them is NOT more laws. This is a pretty basic principle of rule: You can't use new laws to enforce existing laws that aren't obeyed.
Laws are based on the assumption that they will be obeyed or impose consequences if not obeyed. NEITHER OF THESE applies to your theoretical drughead. He doesn't care about your laws! He doesn't care if you want him to pee in a cup. He found a loophole in welfare and he'll find a loophole in the piss test. And if he gets caught he'll find loopholes in the consequences as well!

You can't approach the problem from this angle. It doesn't work. The (theoretical) problem is not "welfare is being abused by drugheads" and the solution is not "test welfare users for drugs." The (theoretical) problem is "drugheads are abusing welfare" and the solution is "get rid of the drugheads." It's not a welfare issue. It's a drug issue.

[SullivanRacing06]

ok take the 3 bucks per drug test out of their free money, if they pass they still get their free money. if they dont then itll save the government millions... not a bad trade off

It costs a lot more than 3 bucks, dingus.

on state probation in florida they charge 5 bucks per drug test, these are all added in your probation charges you have to pay before you get off. im sure if the government buys bulk tests theyll come down in cost.

dingus? real mature

[Dattebayo]

on state probation in florida they charge 5 bucks per drug test, these are all added in your probation charges you have to pay before you get off. im sure if the government buys bulk tests theyll come down in cost.

dingus? real mature

LOL You can't take it.
Also, the "probation costs" are actually what pays for your test, not the $5. The $5 is for handling of the test. DINGUS. It's easier to charge everyone the same fee then to pick who pays what for what service. Some guys have to pay for BAC meter calibration and pipes, some for drug tests, some for counseling and other crap.

Government never gets any kind of deal on anything they buy, don't you know that? "Lowest bidder" always refers to the same cost that you and I get (sometimes more) mixed with cheap labor.

[AppleBonker]

It costs a lot more than 3 bucks, dingus.

on state probation in florida they charge 5 bucks per drug test

Simple google search yields this bit of info:
http://www.ohsinc.com/DRUG_TESTING_COST ... E_PAGE.htm

This guy is estimating an average national cost of $44/test. If you think that someone can get that down to $5, maybe you need the test.

Also, when looking at that data, consider his position: he works for a drug testing company. His goal in providing data is making drug testing look affordable and beneficial. I love how he claims there have been studies that show a decrease of 30-35% in performance by drug users, but then doesn't link to sources. Hardly believable, so feel free to not believe the cost of the test. But, if it were me, I would think the test is actually MORE expensive, and that drug use has LESS of an impact than this guy claims. There's what, about 4-5 million people on welfare nation-wide? So one test every two weeks at even $30/test would amount to about an extra 3.5 billion in annual spending. Granted, that's only a 0.5%-1.0% increase, but do you want to pay for that?

[IBCoupe]

My inflammatory comment, ripped from Learned'd, as I jump into the fray!

I don't see why we shouldn't drug test. We've already obliterated every other protection afforded to us by the Fourth Amendment; why stop here?

I haven't read everything prior to this page, so I apologize if I'm retreading covered ground:
The point of welfare is not to regulate morality. Neither is the point of welfare to support law enforcement. Welfare exists to ensure that we don't have starving families. That's it. Welfare helps to put food in front of a child. If the reason the child has no food is because the mom's a crack-addict who's spent all her money elsewhere, then we call DCF and take the child away. Then the mother qualifies for less welfare.

Seems to me that the system adjusts for itself. If it's not, then why don't we try to make the system work as designed before we try to redesign it? Use the rules we have and make sure they don't work before we go ahead and try to write new rules?

[crazspence]

I don't really see how that is taking away their freedoms. You choose to ask for assistance. I chose to work for my company. My company requires a piss test.

I highly doubt most "choose" to ask for assistance. Sounds like we have a lot of people who never had to draw making summary judgments here.

i beg to differ. if im choosing to ask for assistance, its because i need help. if what you said is true and how people dont choose to ask for assistance and that they are just "given" welfare then shouldnt they be working then?

[AppleBonker]

Is this ^ an honest question, or a joke? I mean, I guess technically they could choose to not go on welfare and starve instead. Same as you technically choose to eat every day. Given the options they have, I don't know that it is a decision anyone would make differently (hence me not really considering it a choice).

[AZhitman]

Unemployment is lumped in with this whole welfare thing, but that is payed for by yourself. And you have to continue to follow your state's requirements weekly`.

Some states have minimal to no requirements, and some don't enforce them.

Welfare for unskilled labor and hardship requires you to work for your money. It's not like they just give you a check and you lay back and take it easy, you have to get education and show actual attempts to make your life better.

Not in all states. I'd actually argue that the situation you describe is the anomaly, not the norm.

The OP's assumption that welfare recipients are mostly drug users is simply too shallow to justify the addition of this kind of qualification to the system.

I don't see that I see a call for drug testing of recipients. Where's the assumption?

My over-archnig qestion is: Why the big argument AGAINST personal accountability AND in defense of illicit activity?

[AZhitman]

make them pay for the drug test simple solution

That's not going to work.

Why not?

Probationers pay for their mandatory drug testing. Don't pay? Go to jail.

[IBCoupe]

...and get three square meals.

[AZhitman]

on state probation in florida they charge 5 bucks per drug test, these are all added in your probation charges you have to pay before you get off. im sure if the government buys bulk tests theyll come down in cost.

dingus? real mature

LOL You can't take it.
Also, the "probation costs" are actually what pays for your test, not the $5. The $5 is for handling of the test. DINGUS. It's easier to charge everyone the same fee then to pick who pays what for what service. Some guys have to pay for BAC meter calibration and pipes, some for drug tests, some for counseling and other crap.

Government never gets any kind of deal on anything they buy, don't you know that? "Lowest bidder" always refers to the same cost that you and I get (sometimes more) mixed with cheap labor.

"Dingus", huh? I spent 6 years overseeing the fifteen Adult Probation Departments of the State of Arizona.

You know a lot less than you think you do.

PSF are separate from drug testing fees. Testing is a function that must (by law) be funded separately, and as such, imposition of a court-ordered fee for each test (often approximating $20) is tacked on at sentencing.

Your cavalier attitude towards other people's positions would be humorous if it didn't make you look like such a boob.

[AppleBonker]

My over-archnig qestion is: Why the big argument AGAINST personal accountability AND in defense of illicit activity?

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing giving the government any more opportunities to catch citizens doing something illegal. I don't agree with a lot of the drug laws, but they're still laws. If you get busted, I don't think you should go to jail for a bunch of them. But that's not something I can actually defend (the law IS the law). I'm also all for personal accountability. But again, the main issue is that we should not be letting the government or police look deeper into our lives to force us to be accountable. As I said before, everyone has dirt. Be careful where you let the police start digging...

[IBCoupe]

Heheh. "Boob."

[fiznowler]

I believe I would try every other option before welfare. If I had to go on welfare then I wouldn't have a problem pissing in a cup. If I needed money that bad, I sure as hell wouldn't be drinking or doing drugs. There is a good portion of people who honestly need the help. There is also another large group that just milk the system. Drug testing isn't the best option for fixing the problem, but it isn't a horrible idea either. Too many people will just do whatever is easier and have no drive to better themselves and get off wellfare once they are on it. I don't know the right answer but the way things are now sure doesn't seem to be the right one.

[AZhitman]

Welfare exists to ensure that we don't have starving families. That's it. Welfare helps to put food in front of a child. If the reason the child has no food is because the mom's a crack-addict who's spent all her money elsewhere, then we call DCF and take the child away. Then the mother qualifies for less welfare.

If that were the case, people without children wouldn't qualify for welfare.

Putting money in the hands of someone who's already exhibited poor judgement, has demonstrated time and time again to be irrensponsible, and incapable of making sound decisions, and expecting that person to magically become a good steward of those funds and use them for their intended purpose?

Brilliant.

[AZhitman]

My over-archnig qestion is: Why the big argument AGAINST personal accountability AND in defense of illicit activity?

But again, the main issue is that we should not be letting the government or police look deeper into our lives to force us to be accountable. As I said before, everyone has dirt. Be careful where you let the police start digging...

Then abolish welfare, because by applying for assistance, you're filling out forms, making attestations, and promising to be accountable.

It's simple: If you're forcing the government to raid MY kids' inheritance / college fund / grocery budget, then you're going to be accountable. Whether it's accountability to the government, or accountability to me, there's gonna have to be some accountability.

[AZhitman]

It costs a lot more than 3 bucks, dingus.

Simple google search yields this bit of info:
http://www.ohsinc.com/DRUG_TESTING_COST ... E_PAGE.htm

This guy is estimating an average national cost of $44/test. If you think that someone can get that down to $5, maybe you need the test.

I did.

I routinely monitored contracts that came in UNDER $5 per test. Her's a source that one of our smaller counties is using.
http://www.usscreeningsource.com/shop/c ... ts-47.html They pay about HALF of what you see quoted there because of the volume purchased. They also use saliva tests for field testing, which are roughly a dollar a test (these come out of a different budget, paid for by the tax on cigs / liquor).

So, the financial argument is shot.

Dingus.

[poems2beats]

The anger is that you shouldn't have to clear your name. That's not how this country works. I should ALWAYS be innocent until proven guilty. I can tell you I'm clean, but I guess you don't have to believe it. However, I'm definitely not going to take a drug test just to prove it to you. Everyone has dirt. You're ok with the government digging in this area, but isn't there an aspect of your life you wouldn't want people digging through?

+1

However I think college students and people on welfare are on two VERY diffrent levels. Seriously, college is a time in life where you should be able to have fun and explore. Most college students are going to end up being successful and in some way end up helping our economy. Should we really prevent Jon Doe from becoming a doctor because one weekend he ate some Shrooms and had a spiritual experience?

[AppleBonker]

Part of my argument is me playing devil's advocate, tbqh. But at the same time, chiseling away at personal freedoms does worry me. It may start here, but what will be the next thing? That is my concern. If I ever actually needed welfare (and I hope I never do), I can pretty much guarantee that I wont be using drugs (I would say I definitely wouldn't as I'm not now, but I have no idea what my mindset would be in that situation having never been there). And I'll definitely be pursuing a legitimate career. So you all are right, this wouldn't likely concern me at all. I'd just rather not see the government getting more power or having more influence on our lives. That idea holds true for me pretty much across the board whether they are trying to take power over something that directly affects me or not.

Then abolish welfare

This is a completely different argument and, quite possibly, one that we'd maybe agree on a bit more.

I routinely monitored contracts that came in UNDER $5 per test. Her's a source that one of our smaller counties is using.
http://www.usscreeningsource.com/shop/c ... ts-47.html They pay about HALF of what you see quoted there because of the volume purchased.

So roughly $3 per test for materials. But who is doing the collecting and the actual testing. Are they doing it for free? If not, that obviously affects the cost. I'm asking that honestly, as I've never bought or administered a drug test in my life. And are you still ok with covering that times 4 million (or however many people it is) times however many times per year you want the test administered?

[IBCoupe]

Well, Greg, that was certainly a creative way to interpret my rhetorical flourish.

But this seems even sillier:

Putting money in the hands of someone who's already exhibited poor judgement, has demonstrated time and time again to be irrensponsible, and incapable of making sound decisions, and expecting that person to magically become a good steward of those funds and use them for their intended purpose?

How do we get from this criticism of welfare to drug tests?

I'll recap my two basic arguments against drug testing on welfare:
1. Fourth Amendment protections
2. The purpose of welfare

If you want to go ahead and get rid of welfare altogether, maybe you might want to make a thread about it.

[AZhitman]

Probationers pay for their drug testing.

The PO (probation officer) and SO (surveillance ofcr) are already paid for, their salaries come from PSF (separate fees) as well as various state, Federal, and local funding.

Our disagreement is kinda moot, unfortunately. See, as Dave (who had no clue he was doing it) pointed out, states' requirements vary wildly. They'd have to be more uniform for anything like this to be implemented. If they WERE more consistent, a simple saliva swab, administered by the counter worker, when you pick up your welfare check / food stamps, wouldn't add appreciably to the burden on taxpayers (it'd actually decrease, since some folks would leave empty-handed).

[AppleBonker]

IBC, I think that criticism was directed at welfare recipients who belong to the subset of drug users and NOT welfare recipients in general (at least I hope I'm interpreting that right). And are we actually arguing drug tests for ONLY welfare? Or for all financial aid recipients?

[AZhitman]

I'll recap my two basic arguments against drug testing on welfare:
1. Fourth Amendment protections
2. The purpose of welfare

1) Certainly arguable, but not watertight. Five states require drug testing for eligibility for economic assistance (NJ, MN, VA, WI, MA). Drug testing of student athletes is fine, per the Supreme Court. Pro athletes submit to testing as well.

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.'

Hard to prove random / arbitrary when everyone's tested, and they're informed of the intent to do so when they apply for assistance.

2) We're never gonna agree on that, as we have a fundamentally different agreement as to the role / function of government. I'm ok with people starving, you're ok with digging in my pocket to prevent it.

[AppleBonker]

But people starving are going to end up being a different burden on society. You know eventually they're going to try to steal as they'll try to survive somehow. And potentially create all sorts of destruction in the process of stealing. So we'd need to up the law enforcement population, pay more for prisons (or other punishment), pay more through increase insurance premiums, etc. Either way you'll end up paying, right?

[RobPaulson]

2) We're never gonna agree on that, as we have a fundamentally different agreement as to the role / function of government. I'm ok with people starving, you're ok with digging in my pocket to prevent it.

[AZhitman]

But people starving are going to end up being a different burden on society. You know eventually they're going to try to steal as they'll try to survive somehow. And potentially create all sorts of destruction in the process of stealing. So we'd need to up the law enforcement population, pay more for prisons (or other punishment), pay more through increase insurance premiums, etc. Either way you'll end up paying, right?

So we bribe them to behave?

We're putting an awful lot of effort and spending an awful lot of money into keeping people from being a**holes, notice that?

Whatever happened to the America that rewarded its citizens for staying out of trouble, making good decisions, saving money, doing the right thing, contributing to the fabric of the community, living within their means, not breaking the law, getting a good education?

Oh, I remember. It was dismantled because it's "unfair" to the losers who chose to do the opposite.

[AppleBonker]

Whatever happened to the America that rewarded its citizens for staying out of trouble, making good decisions, saving money, doing the right thing, contributing to the fabric of the community, living within their means, not breaking the law, getting a good education?

Oh, I remember. It was dismantled because it's "unfair" to the losers who chose to do the opposite.

I can't even play devil's advocate on this one. I think I agree with this statement too much to even find a logical counterargument. You win, good sir.

[AZhitman]

But people starving are going to end up being a different burden on society. You know eventually they're going to try to steal as they'll try to survive somehow. And potentially create all sorts of destruction in the process of stealing. So we'd need to up the law enforcement population, pay more for prisons (or other punishment), pay more through increase insurance premiums, etc. Either way you'll end up paying, right?

You're not talking about building more infrastructure, stimulating the economy, creating jobs, are you?

AJS 101, Chapter One, Page One: Crime Pays.

[crazspence]

Is this ^ an honest question, or a joke? I mean, I guess technically they could choose to not go on welfare and starve instead. Same as you technically choose to eat every day. Given the options they have, I don't know that it is a decision anyone would make differently (hence me not really considering it a choice).

um yea? heres the way i see it. you have 2 choices, yes keyword, CHOICES. you take welfare or die. technically a choice because you can choose to die. however you can also CHOOSE to go get a f*** job like the rest of the world who actually earns his/her keep in society. im not saying no to welfare to those who truly need it. it is a good thing we have that most countries wish they could afford. the problem i see in america is that after people get on welfarey they CHOOSE to stay on it rather than get off the leeching a** and get a job like the rest of us. this wasnt the system that the government intended. it was intend to help people get back on their feet rather than a permanent solution to assfaces who are too f*** lazy and feel that they dont have to contribute to society.

[AppleBonker]

You're not talking about building more infrastructure, stimulating the economy, creating jobs, are you?

I already said you win, damnit. While I would agree that there are a number of things that could be improved about the way federal financial aid is distributed, my hang up will always be altering the system to be more invasive on law-abiding citizens. If you want to test all drug users before they get their welfare check, I'd be cool with it. The problem is, how do you know which ones are users without testing all of them? On top of that, I have no problem eliminating those who are nothing but a huge waste of space and a drain on society (I honestly do hate worthless people). But figuring out who falls into that category gets difficult.

however you can also CHOOSE to go get a f**king job like the rest of the world who actually earns his/her keep in society

This statement is so ludicrous it almost didn't justify a response. Hell, I could choose to be a billionaire tomorrow too, right? I think what you meant to say is they can choose to "look for" a job or maybe even "apply for" jobs. That doesn't guarantee they'll get one. Same as I can choose to request 40 billion dollars from Bill Gates or something, but he doesn't need to give it to me. TBH, I would choose not to work if I could end up with some crazy amount of money like that. I'd just travel the world and live happily for the rest of my life. But, that is a decision I don't really have control over.