Drug testing welfare recipients

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair enough, but under DC rules you CAN get money for life so on a state level there are laws that are very broken. But my question is if you are receiving aid from the state, do you have an obligation to the taxpayers to be drug free?

Okay, I'll bite. No, I don't think that welfare recipients have any additional obligations to stay off illegal drugs than anyone else does. They are already illegal. It is already a crime to buy and use them. I think that putting this sort of "obligation" onto people who apply for government aid sends the message that they are assumed to be criminals, whether they are or not.

But it doesn't so much assume you are a criminal as it validates that you are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair enough, but under DC rules you CAN get money for life so on a state level there are laws that are very broken. But my question is if you are receiving aid from the state, do you have an obligation to the taxpayers to be drug free?

Okay, I'll bite. No, I don't think that welfare recipients have any additional obligations to stay off illegal drugs than anyone else does. They are already illegal. It is already a crime to buy and use them. I think that putting this sort of "obligation" onto people who apply for government aid sends the message that they are assumed to be criminals, whether they are or not.

But it doesn't so much assume you are a criminal as it validates that you are not.

I am trying to find the actual stats on how much it costs to "drug test" welfare applicants. I posted earlier asking for more specifics about what you want to test.

1. What drugs do you want to test for?
2. How often do you want to test? For example, marijuana stays in the system for as long as month, but cocaine is gone within a couple days.
3. Who do you want to test? Just the person listed on the application, or everyone who lives in the house? What about minor children? What about elderly family members?

I understand the desire to not fund someone else's drug using, believe me. I object to it on a number of grounds, though, the main one being that it's prohibitively expensive. Your tax dollars will just be going to fund expensive and potentially unnecessary drug testing instead of hypothetical and potentially non-existent drug use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I'm all for drug testing anyone who gets a Federal benefit. Let's do it for people on Medicare and anyone who declares home mortgage interest on their taxes.

Interesting. So public safety officer's widows who get the federal benefits from their deaths should be drug tested? What about children of military who receive federal benefits for education? Drug test?

Blanket statements!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair enough, but under DC rules you CAN get money for life so on a state level there are laws that are very broken. But my question is if you are receiving aid from the state, do you have an obligation to the taxpayers to be drug free?

Okay, I'll bite. No, I don't think that welfare recipients have any additional obligations to stay off illegal drugs than anyone else does. They are already illegal. It is already a crime to buy and use them. I think that putting this sort of "obligation" onto people who apply for government aid sends the message that they are assumed to be criminals, whether they are or not.

But it doesn't so much assume you are a criminal as it validates that you are not.

I am trying to find the actual stats on how much it costs to "drug test" welfare applicants. I posted earlier asking for more specifics about what you want to test.

1. What drugs do you want to test for?
2. How often do you want to test? For example, marijuana stays in the system for as long as month, but cocaine is gone within a couple days.
3. Who do you want to test? Just the person listed on the application, or everyone who lives in the house? What about minor children? What about elderly family members?

I understand the desire to not fund someone else's drug using, believe me. I object to it on a number of grounds, though, the main one being that it's prohibitively expensive. Your tax dollars will just be going to fund expensive and potentially unnecessary drug testing instead of hypothetical and potentially non-existent drug use.

A standard "1 panel" test - meaning a test that just checks for one drug - used to cost about a dollar (back around 5 years ago) - you could pick any one drug you want in the standard THC, COC, OPT, general catagories of drugs. The five panel screan usually ran from 4-6 dollars depending on which drugs you would add to the screan. Urine tests - dip are pretty cheap.

If you're going to test ALL of the people receiving federal benefits - get ready to raise your taxes.

Also, do you want to do a standard once a week test? A color code call system? A one time test at first use?

What happens if they test dirty? Since they haven't commited a crime "technically" what then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we also drug test students who receive federal financial aid?

If we did, I bet the kids of many of the people who are pro-drug testing welfare recipients would be kicked off financial aid...

But here is the difference. You have to pay back government loans. If a private institution wants to drug test then sure.

You don't pay back grants or scholarships, my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair enough, but under DC rules you CAN get money for life so on a state level there are laws that are very broken. But my question is if you are receiving aid from the state, do you have an obligation to the taxpayers to be drug free?

Okay, I'll bite. No, I don't think that welfare recipients have any additional obligations to stay off illegal drugs than anyone else does. They are already illegal. It is already a crime to buy and use them. I think that putting this sort of "obligation" onto people who apply for government aid sends the message that they are assumed to be criminals, whether they are or not.

But it doesn't so much assume you are a criminal as it validates that you are not.

I am trying to find the actual stats on how much it costs to "drug test" welfare applicants. I posted earlier asking for more specifics about what you want to test.

1. What drugs do you want to test for?
2. How often do you want to test? For example, marijuana stays in the system for as long as month, but cocaine is gone within a couple days.
3. Who do you want to test? Just the person listed on the application, or everyone who lives in the house? What about minor children? What about elderly family members?

I understand the desire to not fund someone else's drug using, believe me. I object to it on a number of grounds, though, the main one being that it's prohibitively expensive. Your tax dollars will just be going to fund expensive and potentially unnecessary drug testing instead of hypothetical and potentially non-existent drug use.

A standard "1 panel" test - meaning a test that just checks for one drug - used to cost about a dollar (back around 5 years ago) - you could pick any one drug you want in the standard THC, COC, OPT, general catagories of drugs. The five panel screan usually ran from 4-6 dollars depending on which drugs you would add to the screan. Urine tests - dip are pretty cheap.

If you're going to test ALL of the people receiving federal benefits - get ready to raise your taxes.

Also, do you want to do a standard once a week test? A color code call system? A one time test at first use?

What happens if they test dirty? Since they haven't commited a crime "technically" what then?

For some reason, I thought the tests were more than that. You also have to pay someone to administer them and pay for facilities to administer them in, though I guess that is a comparatively small number since it can be distributed between many recipients of aid.

[Anonymous]

drug testing is very cheap.

I'm in favor of the idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please give me a cogent and articulate reason why this is a bad idea? If you are on the dole you should be looking for a job not toking it up. I've never heard a rational reason for why this can't be done. Also please don't use the "drugs should be legal" argument, because drugs are illegal so it doesn't hold merit.

It's a bad idea because testing would be expensive and cumbersome. You want more government red tape?

OP here. That's one logical answer which I somewhat agree with, but shouldn't there be some sort of means testing so people don't see this as free money for life but just a pick me up when they are set back, laid off etc.?

OP, you really have to get up to date on the welfare regs. Uh, remember Clinton? He pushed through legislation limiting Federal welfare benefits to five years total for life. Now, states may choose to ignore that and the District did that for many years but now I hear is going to adopt the five-year limit. OP, before you complain about something, please do more research!

Yes, OP. This. This was my point earlier about the inaccuracy of the "free money for life" idea. There ARE limits. Some people who want welfare will always find ways of getting around those limits, in the same way that some rich people who don't want to pay higher taxes will find ways to get around those rules.

Also, seeing some kids or some men hanging around doing nothing does not automatically mean that those people are receiving welfare now or that they will be in the future. I agree that there are a lot of hardworking people who are here illegally, and that the system is broken. I do not agree that "hardworking landscapers + able bodied men hanging out during the day = need to drug test everyone who receives welfare".

Even moreso, you generally can't be on it for more than six months in a stretch. There is an exception now because of the economy, but you need to get a job in six months or you are done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair enough, but under DC rules you CAN get money for life so on a state level there are laws that are very broken. But my question is if you are receiving aid from the state, do you have an obligation to the taxpayers to be drug free?

Okay, I'll bite. No, I don't think that welfare recipients have any additional obligations to stay off illegal drugs than anyone else does. They are already illegal. It is already a crime to buy and use them. I think that putting this sort of "obligation" onto people who apply for government aid sends the message that they are assumed to be criminals, whether they are or not.

But it doesn't so much assume you are a criminal as it validates that you are not.

In America, the government is not allowed to "validate" at will. That's why we have the Bill of Rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we also drug test students who receive federal financial aid?

If we did, I bet the kids of many of the people who are pro-drug testing welfare recipients would be kicked off financial aid...

But here is the difference. You have to pay back government loans. If a private institution wants to drug test then sure.

You don't pay back grants or scholarships, my friend.

Unemployment is not a giveaway like food stamps. It is insurance that employers and employees pay for.

[Anonymous]

What about unemployment benefits? Amazing how quickly those benefits were increased/extended when it was middle-class white folks who were out of a job. Should they be drug tested? Do you bemoan all the "able bodied" former bankers living off the government dole?

[Anonymous]

how about instead of criminalizing those that need help, we investigate the causes of poverty and try to address those?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how about instead of criminalizing those that need help, we investigate the causes of poverty and try to address those?

Because sadly, that's not what those who support this legislation want to do.

When asked why not offer rehab to the offenders, one lawmaker (forget his name/state) responded that the purpose isn't to fix the drug problem, it's just to keep them off welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how about instead of criminalizing those that need help, we investigate the causes of poverty and try to address those?

we have investigated the causes of poverty for hundreds of years. here is an idea, get married, don't have kids until you are married, and graduate from high school. sound hard? do those three things and you will not be poor.

[Anonymous]

What do you mean by the term "welfare"? My understanding is that Aid to Families with Dependent Children (or whatever it is now, post-Clinton, TANF?) is targeted primarily at women and children and the disabled. I don't think there are very many men who qualify (and yes, there's a five-year lifetime limit for all recipients). I checked for stats and it seems there were 25 men on TANF in DC in 2008. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2008/tab19.htm. For comparison, there were 5,375 families (woman + children) in the same period.

So, if your concern is with apparently able-bodied men who aren't working, I'm not sure welfare is the issue. Not having a high school diploma or (better yet) a college education is probably the bigger issue.

FYI - I'm pretty sure that residents of public housing lose their housing if someone in their household has drugs (not quite sure how that works) and I'm pretty sure you lose student aid too.