PDA

View Full Version : Drug Testing Welfare Recipients



Gerry Clinchy
02-04-2012, 03:22 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/04/pennsylvania-officials-roll-out-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/?test=latestnews

This is about a pilot program starting in PA.




But the proposals, in Pennsylvania and across the country, have come under challenge. A federal judge in Florida temporarily blocked a bill backed by Republican Gov. Rick Scott (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/rick-scott-gubernatorial-candidate.htm#r_src=ramp) last year, saying the law could represent an invasion of privacy and questioning whether it complies with the Fourth Amendment barring unreasonable searches. Scott's administration has appealed the decision.




According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least three dozen states proposed bills pertaining to drug tests for welfare and food stamp recipients. Arizona and Missouri have joined Florida in passing drug-test bills, though theirs were more narrowly tailored.

luvmylabs23139
02-04-2012, 03:36 PM
Of course when employers have drug tests as a condition of employment and random drug testing to keep the job it is lawful. I just don't understand the logic. How are the 2 different? I mean if you want the job you comply with the employer's rules. Why should it be any different if you want TAXPAYERS' money?

charly_t
02-04-2012, 05:57 PM
The way I see it is.......if you don't want to be tested that's okay you just don't get the money. Very simple really vbeg. We aren't making it into a law for everyone. Just those who want our money.

road kill
02-04-2012, 05:59 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/04/pennsylvania-officials-roll-out-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/?test=latestnews

This is about a pilot program starting in PA.



The ACLU will be on this like STINK on.....well you know.


RK

mngundog
02-04-2012, 07:28 PM
It should apply to all gov. subsidized money including welfare, student loans, farm loans , SS, business loans etc, if people are going to get free money from the goverment lets not limit the scope of this to the poor. I can just see it now the farmers, politicans, bankers, college students, and seniors lined up together for their drug tests.

Gerry Clinchy
02-04-2012, 07:51 PM
Have to agree that if employers are allowed to do it, why not govt agencies? Actually, I'd bet that there are some govt agencies that do require drug testing.

One can say that the testing for employment is for safety reasons ... wouldn't the same be true for a welfare mother with dependent children, i.e. the safety of the children?

JDogger
02-04-2012, 08:45 PM
It should apply to all gov. subsidized money including welfare, student loans, farm loans , SS, business loans etc, if people are going to get free money from the goverment lets not limit the scope of this to the poor. I can just see it now the farmers, politicans, bankers, college students, and seniors lined up together for their drug tests.


http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/smilies/mouse.gif

Sure, why not?

Marvin S
02-04-2012, 09:41 PM
It should apply to all gov. subsidized money including welfare, student loans, farm loans , SS, business loans etc, if people are going to get free money from the goverment lets not limit the scope of this to the poor. I can just see it now the farmers, politicans, bankers, college students, and seniors lined up together for their drug tests.

As your knowledge of government operations is limited I will explain to you, SS is not a handout. We wage earners & the self employed were/are required to pay into this program so it could be mismanaged. Had I been able to invest the money I paid into SS & gotten the additional wages for what my employer paid into the program. We would not need a nickels worth of help.

Please be kind enough to know what you are talking about prior to clicking "Submit Reply" :).

zeus3925
02-04-2012, 09:51 PM
It should apply to all gov. subsidized money including welfare, student loans, farm loans , SS, business loans etc, if people are going to get free money from the goverment lets not limit the scope of this to the poor. I can just see it now the farmers, politicans, bankers, college students, and seniors lined up together for their drug tests.

Spoken like a true Libertarian!

JDogger
02-04-2012, 10:15 PM
As your knowledge of government operations is limited I will explain to you, SS is not a handout. We wage earners & the self employed were/are required to pay into this program so it could be mismanaged. Had I been able to invest the money I paid into SS & gotten the additional wages for what my employer paid into the program. We would not need a nickels worth of help.

Please be kind enough to know what you are talking about prior to clicking "Submit Reply" :).

Social Security benefits go to a wide range of people who never paid a dime, Marvin, Watch that submit button. :razz: JD

charly_t
02-04-2012, 11:01 PM
It should apply to all gov. subsidized money including welfare, student loans, farm loans , SS, business loans etc, if people are going to get free money from the goverment lets not limit the scope of this to the poor. I can just see it now the farmers, politicans, bankers, college students, and seniors lined up together for their drug tests.

It's this way....my husband and I paid into SS for years and years. We are entitled to this in our old age. It was and is our money. Our employers paid into it for us also. If the government had not started stealing from the SS
it would not be in trouble at all. In the mid 1970s the "Reader's Digest" had an article that explained how well it was working and how it would never be used up as I recall. Guess what the government did just that. Our government as it now stands ( and has for many years ) is nothing but a bunch of crooks.

charly_t
02-04-2012, 11:04 PM
As your knowledge of government operations is limited I will explain to you, SS is not a handout. We wage earners & the self employed were/are required to pay into this program so it could be mismanaged. Had I been able to invest the money I paid into SS & gotten the additional wages for what my employer paid into the program. We would not need a nickels worth of help.

Please be kind enough to know what you are talking about prior to clicking "Submit Reply" :).

Bingo ! Excellent post.

mngundog
02-05-2012, 12:31 PM
As your knowledge of government operations is limited I will explain to you, SS is not a handout. We wage earners & the self employed were/are required to pay into this program so it could be mismanaged. Had I been able to invest the money I paid into SS & gotten the additional wages for what my employer paid into the program. We would not need a nickels worth of help.

Please be kind enough to know what you are talking about prior to clicking "Submit Reply" :).

Your knowledge on this topic seems to be lacking also, there are thousands of people who are on SS that have never paid a dime into the program. Really, I know you may not understand it buts it true, look into it. Then once you gain a understanding of the program come back to the conversation. Here's a link check it out.
http://www.ssa.gov/pgm/survivors.htm

Franco
02-05-2012, 01:21 PM
Spoken like a true Libertarian!

What MNgundog is stating is anything but Libertarian. A Libertarian government would demand a certain self-suffiency of the people and not a nanny state with entitlements destroying the Treasury!

mngundog
02-05-2012, 02:58 PM
Spoken like a true Libertarian!

Zeus, for the most part of the last 15 years I have been employed in jobs that had random drug screening, I have absolutly no issue with my employer testing me once a year or twenty times a year. The thought of the Gov. spending a billion dollars to save 200 million is frankly dumb. The thought that the Gov. could implement a low cost drug test is frankly dumb. The thought of me paying my taxes to support both the rich and the poor is frankly dumb. The Gov. blindly throwing money around got us into this mess, the thought that throwing more money around is not the solution.

zeus3925
02-05-2012, 07:46 PM
Zeus, for the most part of the last 15 years I have been employed in jobs that had random drug screening, I have absolutly no issue with my employer testing me once a year or twenty times a year. The thought of the Gov. spending a billion dollars to save 200 million is frankly dumb. The thought that the Gov. could implement a low cost drug test is frankly dumb. The thought of me paying my taxes to support both the rich and the poor is frankly dumb. The Gov. blindly throwing money around got us into this mess, the thought that throwing more money around is not the solution.

Can't say I disagree with you! My response was a bit tongue in cheek.

Unfortunately, people on both the left and right make demands on government that greatly increases the cost of administration of programs and produces little in intended result.

Many rail on this site about the intrusion of government into the lives of the citizenry. Yet they will jump on a less powerful class and promote wasteful spending in order to fund the effort. They would never submit to that kind of intrusion when it comes to them.

Marvin S
02-05-2012, 09:49 PM
We wage earners & the self employed were/are required to pay into this program so it could be mismanaged. :).


Your knowledge on this topic seems to be lacking also, there are thousands of people who are on SS that have never paid a dime into the program. Really, I know you may not understand it buts it true, look into it. Then once you gain a understanding of the program come back to the conversation. Here's a link check it out.
http://www.ssa.gov/pgm/survivors.htm

What part of that did you not understand :-P. I fully understood it is an insurance program also.

Gerry Clinchy
02-05-2012, 10:02 PM
Can't say I disagree with you! My response was a bit tongue in cheek.

Unfortunately, people on both the left and right make demands on government that greatly increases the cost of administration of programs and produces little in intended result.

Many rail on this site about the intrusion of government into the lives of the citizenry. Yet they will jump on a less powerful class and promote wasteful spending in order to fund the effort. They would never submit to that kind of intrusion when it comes to them.

I don't quite understand that bolded part ... many people submit to it all the time as part of an employment requirement. If they want the job, and want the pay, they agree to the testing. How is this different with a requirement for the same for welfare recipients?

mngundog
02-05-2012, 10:35 PM
What part of that did you not understand :-P. I fully understood it is an insurance program also.

Marvin the part of your quote that is missing is where you said SS is not a handout, where actually in many situations it is just another handout. That's the part I think you didn't understand. I hope my link helped to educate you on it. :D

zeus3925
02-06-2012, 07:56 AM
I don't quite understand that bolded part ... many people submit to it all the time as part of an employment requirement. If they 2
want the job, and want the pay, they agree to the testing. How is this different with a requirement for the same for welfare recipients?

What are you assuming when you demand testing? That all poor people are drug addicts?

Secondly, would the cost of testing gain you any benefit in reduced cost over all? It may not.

There is also the government intrusion issue. The Constitution protects against government intrusion, but the same rules do not apply to private entity intrusion.

smillerdvm
02-06-2012, 09:21 AM
What are you assuming when you demand testing? That all poor people are drug addicts?

Secondly, would the cost of testing gain you any benefit in reduced cost over all? It may not.

There is also the government intrusion issue. The Constitution protects against government intrusion, but the same rules do not apply to private entity intrusion.

I agree with you on govt intrusion, to the extent that there is WAY TOO MUCH of it.Let me also add that I am for the decriminalization or legalization of drugs. The war on drugs has been a collossal FAILURE!!
Other than that I gotta call BS on your post. There is no assumption that all poor are drug addicts. The assumption could be made that if youve got the means or $$ to get non essential drugs & alcohol, then you really shouldn't need govt money for essentials like food & housing
However the govt like anyone else should be able to put conditions on the reciept of freebies. If you want the freebies, then comply with the conditions. The ultimate goal for many of those recieving govt benefits should be to get them off the govt dole and becoming productive wage earners, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that they would be more employable if they were drug & alcohol free?

They already do in multiple respects. You are eliminated from getting many govt benefits such as student grants & loans if you are a druggie. Look at the privacy invasions the govt makes us go through to get on an airplane. Have you flown lately?

Gerry Clinchy
02-06-2012, 09:41 AM
I agree with you on govt intrusion, to the extent that there is WAY TOO MUCH of it.Let me also add that I am for the decriminalization or legalization of drugs. The war on drugs has been a collossal FAILURE!!
Other than that I gotta call BS on your post. There is no assumption that all poor are drug addicts. The assumption could be made that if youve got the means or $$ to get non essential drugs & alcohol, then you really shouldn't need govt money for essentials like food & housing
However the govt like anyone else should be able to put conditions on the reciept of freebies. If you want the freebies, then comply with the conditions. The ultimate goal for many of those recieving govt benefits should be to get them off the govt dole and becoming productive wage earners, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that they would be more employable if they were drug & alcohol free?

They already do in multiple respects. You are eliminated from getting many govt benefits such as student grants & loans if you are a druggie. Look at the privacy invasions the govt makes us go through to get on an airplane. Have you flown lately?

Zeus, I have to agree with smillerdvm, we place restrictions on receiving welfare benefits to begin with.

Whether one believes in decriminalization of recreational drugs or not, if use interferes with employability, then it s definitely relative to receiving a govt freebie as mentioned above.

I believe there are plenty of govt jobs that require drug testing as well. Probably would be a good idea for politicians. An addicted politician would be that much more susceptible to corruption (if that's possible!) due to his/her addiction.

PA is starting its program on a "pilot" basis to see what the cost/benefit ratio.

I also believe that if someone else is paying for your children's essentials, it is fair to require birth control IMO.

Govt already has plenty of rules for tobacco smokers. I can understand not smoking in the workplace ... but also can't smoke outdoors. Some companies reserve the right to test employees for tobacco use even off the job. Ostensibly for cost-control (i.e. smokers are more likely to be ill, take time off).

The newest proposals are to tax sugar since obesity is a national problem. Will food stamp purchases then exclude sweet items? It sometimes seems that only the "poor" are not required to meet any levels of personal responsibility? What has that accomplished?

road kill
02-06-2012, 09:49 AM
Zeus, I have to agree with smillerdvm, we place restrictions on receiving welfare benefits to begin with.

Whether one believes in decriminalization of recreational drugs or not, if use interferes with employability, then it s definitely relative to receiving a govt freebie as mentioned above.

I believe there are plenty of govt jobs that require drug testing as well. Probably would be a good idea for politicians. An addicted politician would be that much more susceptible to corruption (if that's possible!) due to his/her addiction.

PA is starting its program on a "pilot" basis to see what the cost/benefit ratio.

I also believe that if someone else is paying for your children's essentials, it is fair to require birth control IMO.

Govt already has plenty of rules for tobacco smokers. I can understand not smoking in the workplace ... but also can't smoke outdoors. Some companies reserve the right to test employees for tobacco use even off the job. Ostensibly for cost-control (i.e. smokers are more likely to be ill, take time off).

The newest proposals are to tax sugar since obesity is a national problem. Will food stamp purchases then exclude sweet items? It sometimes seems that only the "poor" are not required to meet any levels of personal responsibility? What has that accomplished?

VOTES!!!!;-)


Just sayin'........


RK

luvmylabs23139
02-06-2012, 03:09 PM
What are you assuming when you demand testing? That all poor people are drug addicts?

.

The PA idea is to drug test ONLY those who have been convicted of a drug related felony in the past 5 years.

zeus3925
02-06-2012, 05:40 PM
The PA idea is to drug test ONLY those who have been convicted of a drug related felony in the past 5 years.

That I could see.

zeus3925
02-06-2012, 06:44 PM
Zeus, I have to agree with smillerdvm, we place restrictions on receiving welfare benefits to begin with.

Whether one believes in decriminalization of recreational drugs or not, if use interferes with employability, then it s definitely relative to receiving a govt freebie as mentioned above.

I believe there are plenty of govt jobs that require drug testing as well. Probably would be a good idea for politicians. An addicted politician would be that much more susceptible to corruption (if that's possible!) due to his/her addiction.

PA is starting its program on a "pilot" basis to see what the cost/benefit ratio.

I also believe that if someone else is paying for your children's essentials, it is fair to require birth control IMO.

Govt already has plenty of rules for tobacco smokers. I can understand not smoking in the workplace ... but also can't smoke outdoors. Some companies reserve the right to test employees for tobacco use even off the job. Ostensibly for cost-control (i.e. smokers are more likely to be ill, take time off).

The newest proposals are to tax sugar since obesity is a national problem. Will food stamp purchases then exclude sweet items? It sometimes seems that only the "poor" are not required to meet any levels of personal responsibility? What has that accomplished?

My argument is, the governmental intrusion aside, is that the question of whether or not it is worth the cost. Besides, coming down hard doesn't cure the addiction and it only makes it harder to get at when the need arises. If an addiction is in the way of employability, deal with that individual, not spend a lot of money screening a lot of people who may not be affected.

In my next world people will have to have a license to have kids. Over the years working in child protection, I have seen way too many parents that are simply not equipped to raise their kids. However, we live in a real world where the mere suggestion of birth control requirements imposed by government will spawn a fierce reaction from numerous religious fronts. Joining them, no doubt, will be civil libertarians as well.

HPL
02-06-2012, 07:47 PM
My plan is everyone is sterilized at birth. At 22 (or older) if you want to have a child you take a test. If you pass we reverse the sterilization. As soon as the female is preg, re-sterilize the male and same for the female as soon as she gives birth. If you wish to do it again, we'll see how you are doing four years later.

zeus3925
02-06-2012, 08:26 PM
My plan is everyone is sterilized at birth. At 22 (or older) if you want to have a child you take a test. If you pass we reverse the sterilization. As soon as the female is preg, re-sterilize the male and same for the female as soon as she gives birth. If you wish to do it again, we'll see how you are doing four years later.

Let me guess--You support the Libertarian candidate?:D

Franco
02-06-2012, 08:33 PM
My plan is everyone is sterilized at birth. At 22 (or older) if you want to have a child you take a test. If you pass we reverse the sterilization. As soon as the female is preg, re-sterilize the male and same for the female as soon as she gives birth. If you wish to do it again, we'll see how you are doing four years later.

I like it! Too bad you support Newt.

I'll add that in order to vote, one must;

prove citizenship
have passed a basic civics test in English
pass a basic test in American History and
have pay taxes over the last three consecutive years

no skin in the system & country, no vote

HPL
02-06-2012, 09:11 PM
My voting record would indicate that I'm a realist and willing to comprise so actually, I usually vote rep, but did indeed vote Libertarian in the last election. Don't want government interfering in how we live unless I'M in control.

HPL
02-06-2012, 10:31 PM
I like it! Too bad you support Newt.

I'll add that in order to vote, one must;

prove citizenship
have passed a basic civics test in English
pass a basic test in American History and
have pay taxes over the last three consecutive years

no skin in the system & country, no vote
I'll go with the rules to vote too except that I think the part on having to have paid taxes in the last three consecutive years needs some adjustment. Anyone who has served honorably in the armed services and is a citizen should be able to vote no matter their current financial status as should anyone who has paid taxes in say three of the last five years and anyone who has paid taxes for more than maybe 20 or 25 years altogether should qualify. Certainly there are many retired folks who paid into the system their whole lives who may no longer make enough or who may have planned well enough to no longer be paying taxes and they shouldn't be penalized.

Gerry Clinchy
02-07-2012, 09:20 AM
Absolutely should have to prove citizenship to vote and prove that you can read and understand English well enough to follow the instructions! My voting booth has bi-lingual instructions!! Well, at least they have to be able to read in SOME language.

These criteria can be verified when voters register to vote; then only need to present identification when they show up at the polls. I have to sign a book at the polls. The book has my signatures from previous times I've voted, for comparison.

I don't know that paying taxes should be a criteria. There could be various reasons for not paying taxes or being unemployed. Basic American history should be part of becoming a citizen to begin with for immigrants.

What is even more shocking is that many of the general population doesn't know what's going on TODAY!