Drug testing welfare recipients

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.?

[Anonymous]

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.

I agree with you in theory. It may come down to something that no one wants to talk about, which is, what do we do with the people we kick off welfare because they are addicted to drugs? Can we, as a society, stomach people dying in the streets because they have nowhere to live and nothing to eat? I dunno - these are hard questions for me to answer for myself. Because I assure you, even if you say to these people, you have 6 months to get clean or we will not give you any more money, alot of them wouldn't care. Because they are sick and addicted.

[Anonymous]

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.

Because we don't treat ordinary citizens like criminals. We don't mess with people unless there is a reason to suspect that they are breaking the law. They already have to prove that they have been seeking a job, which is a more direct response to your justification.

Anyway if you want unemployed people to piss in the cup based solely on their misfortune of being laid off, then you should push for testing of people who hold driver's licenses. At least there you have a strong connection between drug use and public well-being.

[Anonymous]

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, how familiar are you with the process of getting welfare? I am not as familiar with the process today as I was with the process in the mid-1980s when my family was on welfare, but I think that the stories of people getting welfare as a source of free money for life are largely exaggerated. I'm sure such people exist, but my personal experience with the system was that it was humiliating process to engage with in the first place and we wanted to get off it as soon as possible.

As for the drug testing idea, it is an expensive and complicated proposition. How often do you want to test? Some drugs stay in the system for weeks, some only for a matter of hours. What about alcohol? Alcohol is a drug, but I think that we can all agree that having a beer in the evening is different from smoking a bowl in more ways than legality. Caffeine is a drug too. So is nicotine. How do you want to deal with those things?

Not intended to be snarky. Genuinely interested in what you have to say.

[Anonymous]

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, how familiar are you with the process of getting welfare? I am not as familiar with the process today as I was with the process in the mid-1980s when my family was on welfare, but I think that the stories of people getting welfare as a source of free money for life are largely exaggerated. I'm sure such people exist, but my personal experience with the system was that it was humiliating process to engage with in the first place and we wanted to get off it as soon as possible.

As for the drug testing idea, it is an expensive and complicated proposition. How often do you want to test? Some drugs stay in the system for weeks, some only for a matter of hours. What about alcohol? Alcohol is a drug, but I think that we can all agree that having a beer in the evening is different from smoking a bowl in more ways than legality. Caffeine is a drug too. So is nicotine. How do you want to deal with those things?

Not intended to be snarky. Genuinely interested in what you have to say.

But alcohol and caffeine are legal drugs thus we can't really include them in to the mix. I know companies that make employees sign no smoking pledges and fire them if they get caught smoking. Also once welfare becomes generational it seems to lose its humiliation as that is what you are born in to and all you know. How do you break the cycle? As a resident of Capitol Hill it's sad to watch the kids in PG near the Harris Teeter, it is more than likely they too will be welfare recipients and addicted to drugs etc.

My point is doesn't carry over to those who are generally disabled or have some sort of malady that prevents them from working, but when I drive by there and see dozens of able bodied men just hanging out, and yet the people who caught my lawn are undocumented residents who came here in the back of a truck to work their ass off, I realize there is a glitch in the system.

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

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".

[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, how familiar are you with the process of getting welfare? I am not as familiar with the process today as I was with the process in the mid-1980s when my family was on welfare, but I think that the stories of people getting welfare as a source of free money for life are largely exaggerated. I'm sure such people exist, but my personal experience with the system was that it was humiliating process to engage with in the first place and we wanted to get off it as soon as possible.

As for the drug testing idea, it is an expensive and complicated proposition. How often do you want to test? Some drugs stay in the system for weeks, some only for a matter of hours. What about alcohol? Alcohol is a drug, but I think that we can all agree that having a beer in the evening is different from smoking a bowl in more ways than legality. Caffeine is a drug too. So is nicotine. How do you want to deal with those things?

Not intended to be snarky. Genuinely interested in what you have to say.

But alcohol and caffeine are legal drugs thus we can't really include them in to the mix. I know companies that make employees sign no smoking pledges and fire them if they get caught smoking. Also once welfare becomes generational it seems to lose its humiliation as that is what you are born in to and all you know. How do you break the cycle? As a resident of Capitol Hill it's sad to watch the kids in PG near the Harris Teeter, it is more than likely they too will be welfare recipients and addicted to drugs etc.

My point is doesn't carry over to those who are generally disabled or have some sort of malady that prevents them from working, but when I drive by there and see dozens of able bodied men just hanging out, and yet the people who caught my lawn are undocumented residents who came here in the back of a truck to work their ass off, I realize there is a glitch in the system.

]

Hi. Me again. Also, how do you know that those apparently able bodied people are actually able bodied? I know a lot of people who have disabilities that make it truly hard for them to work that you don't know are there just by looking at them.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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...

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.