drug testing for food stamps?

BinauralJam

know1 wrote:

Why not? I don't see anything wrong with this. If you want a handout, you should abide by the rules to get it. Heck, I'd even like them to have to submit a financial report monthly as to what they spent the money on.

But while we're at it, let's also drug test all politicians and government officials who are responsible for taking money from others and re-distributing it.

:thumbup:

fife

again i will ask, what proof do we have that this would in fact save money for the taxpayer and the government.

what drugs will they test for? and what drugs won't they test for and why not?

unsung

This is the biggest no brainer in the history of Earth.

unsung

fife wrote:

what drugs will they test for? and what drugs won't they test for and why not?

What difference does it make? I'm guessing meth, pot, coke, heroin, etc. Is there a problem with that? Why should I hold down a job and have to take drugs tests but the people that won't lift a hand to contribute and will be taking my tax dollar not have to drug test?

fife

unsung wrote:

This is the biggest no brainer in the history of Earth.

do you mind to explain why?

Moonpig

unsung wrote:

This is the biggest no brainer in the history of Earth.

hmm, I disagree, I believe tighter restrictions on who can purchase firearms in America would qualify as above statment

fife

unsung wrote:

fife wrote:

what drugs will they test for? and what drugs won't they test for and why not?

What difference does it make? I'm guessing meth, pot, coke, heroin, etc. Is there a problem with that? Why should I hold down a job and have to take drugs tests but the people that won't lift a hand to contribute and will be taking my tax dollar not have to drug test?

what job do you have that makes you have drug test if you don't mind me asking? yes i have a problem with that. if you read another post i wrote i asked the question about if a person is HIV + and needs pot so that they can eat so that they can take down food. how about for cancer patient.

unsung

fife wrote:

unsung wrote:

fife wrote:

what drugs will they test for? and what drugs won't they test for and why not?

What difference does it make? I'm guessing meth, pot, coke, heroin, etc. Is there a problem with that? Why should I hold down a job and have to take drugs tests but the people that won't lift a hand to contribute and will be taking my tax dollar not have to drug test?

what job do you have that makes you have drug test if you don't mind me asking? yes i have a problem with that. if you read another post i wrote i asked the question about if a person is HIV + and needs pot so that they can eat so that they can take down food. how about for cancer patient.

Nuclear power.

Doctor prescribed scripts would be exempt in my book. Back alley and trailer park scripts would not.

fife

[

What difference does it make? I'm guessing meth, pot, coke, heroin, etc. Is there a problem with that? Why should I hold down a job and have to take drugs tests but the people that won't lift a hand to contribute and will be taking my tax dollar not have to drug test?[/quote]

what job do you have that makes you have drug test if you don't mind me asking? yes i have a problem with that. if you read another post i wrote i asked the question about if a person is HIV + and needs pot so that they can eat so that they can take down food. how about for cancer patient.[/quote]


Nuclear power.

Doctor prescribed scripts would be exempt in my book. Back alley and trailer park scripts would not.[/quote]

that cool but in this report it doesn't show any exception and that my problem. the other problem i have is that i don't believe that this will save money.

fife

blackredyellow wrote:

Another question I have is for parents who fail a test, then what happens to their family? The kids already have crappy parents, now they are going to suffer more with no food or a place to live?

And while the state withholds welfare programs from these people, other social services are going to have to come in and deal with the mess left because of this, so it would still cost the taxpayers.

Im going to assume that the kids will either live with other family members or taken into a group home setting. Another reason i don't like this law. i don't see how just saying to people "stop doing drug" or "you will not get money" actually helps. like i have said before, I know alot of people addicted to drug and if this bill came into law they would not stop using. they might start pulling tricks which increases their chances of getting an STI like HIV. they will start to rob people and hence again increase their chance of getting put in jail. this is a very complex issues that's needs more thought than saying hey just stop giving them money.

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

The concept sounds logical but it would open the states to lawsuits for discrimination. It would also be costly to implement. It is logical but not feasible.

I don't know how this could be seen as discrimination. No one should be able to use illegal substances and be on any government program

that being said, just legalize and the logistical problem of doing the actual tests goes away.

Also, why doesn't the government just run a welfare food kitchen. Serve all the clients their meals that way instead of allowing the rampant abuse that happens with people selling their food stamps. I am still in favor of ebt programs for spending money to actually live, but why not just serve them food. At least we would know the kids are getting a balanced meal with good ingredients

It is too bad their is waste, but let's not fool ourselves, the amount of waste in this program isn't any worse than in any other government funded program.

mikepegg44

fife wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Another question I have is for parents who fail a test, then what happens to their family? The kids already have crappy parents, now they are going to suffer more with no food or a place to live?

And while the state withholds welfare programs from these people, other social services are going to have to come in and deal with the mess left because of this, so it would still cost the taxpayers.

Im going to assume that the kids will either live with other family members or taken into a group home setting. Another reason i don't like this law. i don't see how just saying to people "stop doing drug" or "you will not get money" actually helps. like i have said before, I know alot of people addicted to drug and if this bill came into law they would not stop using. they might start pulling tricks which increases their chances of getting an STI like HIV. they will start to rob people and hence again increase their chance of getting put in jail. this is a very complex issues that's needs more thought than saying hey just stop giving them money.

it is poor policy to not do this check simply because you are afraid of what might happen if you stop. If the government deems drugs to be illegal they should not be able to use them and get government assistance. Seems logical to me. I cannot use them and stay at my work, why on earth should they be allowed to get benefits?

but again, just legalize them and the problems become much different in nature, but I think easier to solve

Drowned Out

unsung wrote:

Doctor prescribed scripts would be exempt in my book. Back alley and trailer park scripts would not.

No trailer park scripts, huh? So you're going to test for all the street drugs, AND Amytal, Nembutal, Seconal, Phenobarbital, Ativan, Halcion, Librium, Valium, Xanax, Rohypnol, Ketalar/Ketamine, Actiq, Duragesic, Sublimaze, Roxanol, Duramorph, laudanum, paregoric, Tylox, OxyContin, Percodan, Percocet, Demerol, meperidine hydrochloride, Vicodin, Lortab, Lorcet, Darvon, Darvocet, Biphetamine, Dexedrine, and all the other codeine/morphine derivatives....right?
...then cross reference the results with each test subjects' medical records....then pray you don't screw anything up and end up in court for denying someone food stamps, who was taking a script for legit reasons?
See where I'm going here?
Why are we moving backwards on fucking EVERYTHING? Everywhere I look, it's band-aid fixes with no regard to root causes. Also...this is another example of people wanting smaller government, while asking for bigger government out the other side of their mouths. This would be a regulatory nightmare, wrapped in so much red tape.

Godfather.

Drowned Out wrote:

unsung wrote:

Doctor prescribed scripts would be exempt in my book. Back alley and trailer park scripts would not.

No trailer park scripts, huh? So you're going to test for all the street drugs, AND Amytal, Nembutal, Seconal, Phenobarbital, Ativan, Halcion, Librium, Valium, Xanax, Rohypnol, Ketalar/Ketamine, Actiq, Duragesic, Sublimaze, Roxanol, Duramorph, laudanum, paregoric, Tylox, OxyContin, Percodan, Percocet, Demerol, meperidine hydrochloride, Vicodin, Lortab, Lorcet, Darvon, Darvocet, Biphetamine, Dexedrine, and all the other codeine/morphine derivatives....right?
...then cross reference them with each test subjects' medical records....then pray you don't screw anything up and end up in court for denying someone food stamps, who was taking a script for legit reasons?
See where I'm going here?
Why are we moving backwards on fucking EVERYTHING? Everywhere I look, it's band-aid fixes with no regard to root causes. Also...this is another example of people wanting smaller government, while asking for bigger government out the other side of their mouths. This would be a regulatory nightmare, wrapped in so much red tape.

no offence man but this whloe train forum is just that, and on another side people whant they want and most times can't see the big picture but you can't blame them for that,they just want is right...in their minds.

Godfather.

fife

Im going to assume that the kids will either live with other family members or taken into a group home setting. Another reason i don't like this law. i don't see how just saying to people "stop doing drug" or "you will not get money" actually helps. like i have said before, I know alot of people addicted to drug and if this bill came into law they would not stop using. they might start pulling tricks which increases their chances of getting an STI like HIV. they will start to rob people and hence again increase their chance of getting put in jail. this is a very complex issues that's needs more thought than saying hey just stop giving them money.[/quote]


it is poor policy to not do this check simply because you are afraid of what might happen if you stop. If the government deems drugs to be illegal they should not be able to use them and get government assistance. Seems logical to me. I cannot use them and stay at my work, why on earth should they be allowed to get benefits?

but again, just legalize them and the problems become much different in nature, but I think easier to solve[/quote]

I think it poor policy to not think about side effects of certain laws. the main reason for this bill is to save money but i don't believe that this will save money. all this will do is increase funding for other services and will never resolve the issues of substance use.

blackredyellow

fife wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Another question I have is for parents who fail a test, then what happens to their family? The kids already have crappy parents, now they are going to suffer more with no food or a place to live?

And while the state withholds welfare programs from these people, other social services are going to have to come in and deal with the mess left because of this, so it would still cost the taxpayers.

Im going to assume that the kids will either live with other family members or taken into a group home setting. Another reason i don't like this law. i don't see how just saying to people "stop doing drug" or "you will not get money" actually helps. like i have said before, I know alot of people addicted to drug and if this bill came into law they would not stop using. they might start pulling tricks which increases their chances of getting an STI like HIV. they will start to rob people and hence again increase their chance of getting put in jail. this is a very complex issues that's needs more thought than saying hey just stop giving them money.

That's my point... if there were better family custody/guardianship options for the kids of drug abusers, I'm guessing the kids would already be there, and putting the kids into the system is just going to cost more tax dollars.

Like you said, addicts aren't going to suddenly quit using, they will just end up homeless or probably commit crimes to pay for drugs so it's going to cost society anyway.

This is just one of those bad problems with really no good solutions.

If this bill is passed, I would hope that there is a process set up where if people fail their tests, there are treatment options setup, and not just "well, you are screwed crackhead... good luck".

shadowcast

It makes sense when you look at but it is drug addiction. You cannot starve people if they have an addiction. Also, food stamps do not carry a cash value so it's not like they are buying drugs with food stamps.

What all states should do is give complimantary birth control like the pill or some sort of shot. That would help the long term.

fife

[
Why are we moving backwards on fucking EVERYTHING? Everywhere I look, it's band-aid fixes with no regard to root causes. Also...this is another example of people wanting smaller government, while asking for bigger government out the other side of their mouths. This would be a regulatory nightmare, wrapped in so much red tape.[/quote]

I might be wrong but I don't see this as a big or small government thing. I see this as a nation so worried about money that the government is trying to show that they are doing something. of course they won't look at the bigger budget stuff that in reality is causing the most harm money wise. going after substance user is the easy answer.

whygohome

Someone said that the main point of this law would be to save money. I feel that the best benefit of this law would be to save the programs. Then, once you weed out those who do not deserve to be on these programs, those who are manipulating the system, those who are taking advantage of the programs, the programs would work better for those who NEED the assistance and those who DESERVE IT. See my earlier post: I support these programs. I do not support though, the way they are taken advantage of.

Drowned Out

fife wrote:

I might be wrong but I don't see this as a big or small government thing. I see this as a nation so worried about money that the government is trying to show that they are doing something. of course they won't look at the bigger budget stuff that in reality is causing the most harm money wise. going after substance user is the easy answer.

Sure, you’re right…I think it’s all of those things.
I was referring to the fact that drug testing for food stamps would create another level of bureaucracy, probably a massive expansion of whatever agency is currently in control of the program. Some people seem to think that's ok, while the programs themselves are not. kinda circular logic, no?