Drug testing welfare recipients: Discuss

[pineapplebunnybounce]

It doesn't make sense to say other people survive under the same condition, so there must be something inherently wrong with how people on welfare live, that's why they need welfare. When discussing policies we're talking about the big picture here, government has to be responsible for the entire society, not just the portion that does well (especially when they do well because another portion is exploited). When large amounts of people fail, it's no longer individual failures, it's systemic failure. There's also the issue of rights that Missluckie brought up, the right to means that allows one to achieve a certain standard of living is a right that should not be taken away even if you're a criminal. This is a civilization, people, we don't starve our prisoners and we most certainly have a responsibility to ensure that everyone in the society has a way to achieve a certain standard of living (food, home, etc.). Unless someone can convince me that all those people can get food and housing whenever they want, they just prefer not to, we have failed.

[Brakeman]

It's easier to yell "get a job!" than to work to make sure a job is available.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I just wanna get this straight. Are they actually claiming victory because families with dependents won't be getting aid? Is this really a win?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56...p.html.csp
Data from Utah’s first year of screening welfare applicants for drug and alcohol abuse reveal that the Department of Workforce Services spent over $30,000 on surveys and drug tests but saved an estimated $369,000 in unpaid benefits because of the scores of applicants who walked away rather than submit to the scrutiny.

Rep. Brad Wilson, R-Kaysville, sponsored HB155 last year, placing Utah among eight states that now link welfare assistance to drug testing in some way. The National Conference of State Legislatures website notes that 29 more states might follow suit.


Rep. Brad Wilson, R-Kaysville, sponsored HB155, which imposes drug screening requirements for welfare applicants. Wilson and state officials say the program has saved much more than it's cost by prodding some applicants to walk away rather than submit to the extra scrutiny.
View photo gallery (1 photos)
Join the Discussion
Post a Comment
"Our goal isn’t to weed people out of the program but to get them the help they need," Wilson said Wednesday. "I’ve seen the devastating effects of drug addiction, and I know what an obstacle that can be for people to get back on their own two feet," Wilson added. "There are things we can do to help if those individuals are willing to help themselves."

Under the new law, people applying for Utah’s Family Employment Program (FEP) — part of the federally funded Temporary Aid For Needy Families (TANF) — must take the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory or SASSI test, a tool that identifies individuals who have a high probability of addictive behavior.

Tagged individuals may then be required to submit to a drug test. Those testing positive must undergo treatment to continue receiving FEP benefits for their households.

Agency data show that 1,020 of 4,730 FEP applicants scored high on the SASSI, 466 were drug tested and 12 tested positive. Just four sought treatment.

Each SASSI costs $1.25 — totalling $5,912.50 for 4,730 applicants. The actual drug testing cost $25,654 for a combined total of $31,566.50.

Some 247 high-probability applicants failed to comply with requirements and were barred from reapplying for aid for 90 days, DWS Public Information Officer Nic Dunn said.

Because the average three-person household receives $498 per month in cash assistance, agency officials calculated that total cost savings for the 247 turned-away applicants and their dependent children was $123,006 a month, or $369,018 for the three-month period they were prohibited from reapplying.

DWS has no way of knowing for sure how many in that group — largely made up of people failing to register for tests or failing to show up for screening — were abusing drugs or alcohol, Dunn added.

Well, It seems to be reasonable approach if you ask me.
I am all for welfare, but if my tax money is going to go to some junky who will use it to fuel his addiction, then my money has gone to waste.
If they apply and take the drug test, and it comes out as positive for a certain substance or are alcoholics, I'd say that I'd be okay if those individuals would submit to government sponsored addiction programs to clean them up, if they wish to receive further welfare benefits. It might be an incentive factor.
And also, it also helps to clear out any potential people that might want to abuse the system.

[Cinjin]

<snip> http://atheistforums.org/thread-21431-po...#pid525040
People suck. They will always suck.

This is a dangerous construct. Reconsider

Meh, your opinion is not nearly enough for me to take into consideration, nor will I reconsider a position when no effort was made to explain or validate why said position is a "dangerous construct."

[Drich]

This is awesome! They should make this a nation wide policy.

It pushes people to reconcile or at least deal with their drug problems on one level or another, rather than enable them to continue unchecked. The rest of soceity WORKS under these conditions, why should the poor or even working poor not be subject to these very same rights and responsiablities?

I agree for cash assistance, that shit shouldn't just be handed to people. But food assist should never be conditional, ever. Certainly not for alcoholics when alcohol is LEgal and taxed by the state.
"Oh lets tax your addiction then when you're too hard up from that addiction: fuck you."

Note that only four people out of those 477 households actually got the treatment. Also notice that the implementation of said tests were scare tactics, nothing more--the lack of informing the testees that they'd receive the benefits if they go to treatment is a RED FLAG. You know what else is a red flag? The government over-stepping it's bounds. I can understand if it tested people with prior misdameanors or felonies or a history of drug or alcohol addiction. In all reality would you Drich, actually go pee in a cup for the government if you were out of work and needed food assistance? Or would you feel indignant that it's none of their goddamn business? It's none of their business, unless you've broken a law. Plain out, NOT their business. Their business is providing the support services needed to keep society running.

Here's the thing: you have poor families afraid of losing their kids. Plain and simple. All this is going to do is drive families on the fringe, down to the ground. And whose gonna catch them? Certainly not the Republicans, oh no. They're too busy pissing on people. Would you send your own children to foster care? No? then why expect others not to fight for their own, addiction or not? Their homes are typically better than a foster care situation, not to mention the giant influx of foster care this is going to cause. They already can't handle the burden of that the state faces already with adoption and fostering. No one's going to go get help because that would include endangering the coherence of their family units (and attaining possible legal issues), and family bonds are tight. Self-preservation is tighter--no one's going to go voluntarily say they have a drug problem and ensue legal troubles on themselves. Unfortunately thanks to biology: family bonds have proven to not be tighter than addiction, and granted there needs to be more oversight on childrens rights, but families none the less who are struggling already will now be left dead in the water.

So long as you understand you're standing your ground with starving children at your feet.

I've been watched as I peed in a cup to keep a crappy job that paid less than those who collected benfits got. Again if someone who works their ass off to pay taxes all pee in cups then so too should the people who spend that money.

---

Drug testing should not happen, period. If you're sober and clear-headed while on the job, and your activities are not causing substantive harm to those around you, what you do at home is irrelevant.

That maybe true if you flip burgers or clean toilets, but for any job requiring any higher brain functions, stoner mistakes cost employers money.

---

It's easier to yell "get a job!" than to work to make sure a job is available.

What have you done?

[Minimalist]

I've been watched as I peed in a cup to keep a crappy job that paid less than those who collected benfits got.

Yeah...you should be watched.

[Ryantology]

I've been watched as I peed in a cup to keep a crappy job that paid less than those who collected benfits got. Again if someone who works their ass off to pay taxes all pee in cups then so too should the people who spend that money.

Nobody should be peeing in cups. It's just as wrong that you have to do it as it is anybody else.

That maybe true if you flip burgers or clean toilets, but for any job requiring any higher brain functions, stoner mistakes cost employers money.

If you're stoned at work, you deserve to get fired. If you get stoned at home, on your own time, and it doesn't affect your performance or attendance, it is nobody's business but yours. I've smoked pot for years, and it has never had the slightest negative effect on my ability to work hard and accurately.

[freedomfromforum]

This is a dangerous construct. Reconsider

Meh, your opinion is not nearly enough for me to take into consideration, nor will I reconsider a position when no effort was made to explain or validate why said position is a "dangerous construct."

Has the idea that 'infidels suck' (or any other blanket form of judgment) ever had any dangerous affect on other cultures or groups with differing beliefs? My point was that our beliefs influence our actions - it's psychology - we can't help it. If I construct a 'belief' that "people suck", then I'm bound to prove that true one way or another. You are free to believe what you like, though I personally would not like walking through life so confident that my fellow-mankind all "suck". For me personally, that construct would lend itself only toward my contribution to the inevitable reality I had so adamantly professed already existed.

[Brakeman]

It's easier to yell "get a job!" than to work to make sure a job is available.

What have you done?

I work hard to help make my company profitable and fair, and I help them save many times my salary so they can hire others. I majored in Economics and Industrial MGT in college so I understand which kind of businesses that I should support with my dollars. I vote the best I can with the choices I'm given. I give business ideas freely to others for their use. I give advice to the youngsters on how to best choose a career and how to build resumes.
I once ran a computer business with employees.

All in all, I do my share. What have you done other than to con people out of 10% of their income?

[kılıç_mehmet]

I've been watched as I peed in a cup to keep a crappy job that paid less than those who collected benfits got. Again if someone who works their ass off to pay taxes all pee in cups then so too should the people who spend that money.

Nobody should be peeing in cups. It's just as wrong that you have to do it as it is anybody else.

That maybe true if you flip burgers or clean toilets, but for any job requiring any higher brain functions, stoner mistakes cost employers money.

If you're stoned at work, you deserve to get fired. If you get stoned at home, on your own time, and it doesn't affect your performance or attendance, it is nobody's business but yours. I've smoked pot for years, and it has never had the slightest negative effect on my ability to work hard and accurately.

Well, I think that employers do have the right to what kind of a person they want to hire. I personally would not want to hire anyone that uses drugs. Is that not my right? For that purpose, if I require that employers take a drug test, what evil is there?