drug testing for food stamps?

fife

whygohome wrote:

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.

you raise an interesting question. the question is what do you mean by deserving and non-deserving? i am going to give you 2 stories of peopel i know personally who are on welfare here in Canada.

story one. I have a client who is about 45 years old. he had been working for most of his life in a factory. this factory was closed and he lost his job. he always had an issues with crack but when he was working he would only do it on the weekend. this person tried to find another job but couldn't because in reality he didn't have any education. this guy still does crack once in a blue moon whenever he can find someone who he can split the cost with. he is still actively looking for a job.

Story 2. I have a client who is very young. he's 23. he finished highschool and went to university but got kick out for bad grades. after being kicked out of school, he found a job at a fast food place but kept losing his job becuase he would miss work alot. this person we found out later had a major drinking problem. he is now on welfare here and is not really looking for a job.

Who is the deserving person. i would bet that this law of drug testing would say that the crack user is bad but the drinker is ok.

and by the way these are true stories from people that i work with everyday.

Blockhead

fife wrote:

whygohome wrote:

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.

you raise an interesting question. the question is what do you mean by deserving and non-deserving? i am going to give you 2 stories of peopel i know personally who are on welfare here in Canada.

story one. I have a client who is about 45 years old. he had been working for most of his life in a factory. this factory was closed and he lost his job. he always had an issues with crack but when he was working he would only do it on the weekend. this person tried to find another job but couldn't because in reality he didn't have any education. this guy still does crack once in a blue moon whenever he can find someone who he can split the cost with. he is still actively looking for a job.

Story 2. I have a client who is very young. he's 23. he finished highschool and went to university but got kick out for bad grades. after being kicked out of school, he found a job at a fast food place but kept losing his job becuase he would miss work alot. this person we found out later had a major drinking problem. he is now on welfare here and is not really looking for a job.

Who is the deserving person. i would bet that this law of drug testing would say that the crack user is bad but the drinker is ok.

and by the way these are true stories from people that i work with everyday.

Wouldn't story 1 be on unemployment since he lost his job???

mikepegg44

fife wrote:

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.

Well we can all think we know what will happen when policy goes into effect. that is why we have debate over certain issues, but in my experience with the government bureaucracy side of things, which is extensive given my profession, it isn't a good idea to always base policy on the million what ifs that may come up. If a direct causation can be drawn to the things you speak of it probably won't pass. If not, and it is merely conjecture that shouldn't stop them from making what may turn out to be a good waste stopping bill. Only charge the client if the test comes up positive, otherwise have the state pay for it.
It may only save $1 dollar, but it will help people rest a little easier thinking they are not funding someone's drug habit...who knows, I hate the idea, drugs should be legal anyway, but I still believe it is bad policy to wonder about what ifs all the time, they cripple our department and add to the inefficiency of the government like nothing else

Godfather.

this a cut and paste e-mail that was flying around....????

Godfather.


You think the war in Iraq was costing
us too much? Read this:

We have been hammered with the
propaganda that it was the Iraq war and
the war on terror that is bankrupting us.





1.
$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare
to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify
at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?p ... enters7fd8 <http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8&gt;


2.
$22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food
assistance programs such as food stamps,
WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify
at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML <http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML&gt;


3.
$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on
Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML <http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML&gt;


4.
$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on
primary and secondary school education
for children here illegally and they
cannot speak a word of English!

Verify
at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... dt..0.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML&gt;


5.
$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for
education for the American-born
children of illegal aliens, known as
anchor babies.

Verify
at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... dt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML&gt;


6.
$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to
incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/ TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML&gt;
http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/ TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML&gt;&lt;http://transcripts.cnn.com/ TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/ TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML&gt; >




7.
30% percent of all Federal Prison
inmates are illegal aliens.


Verify
at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANscriptS/ ... dt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML&gt;
<http://transcripts/ <http://transcripts/&gt; ..cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML%3E <;;



8.
$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on
illegal aliens for Welfare & social
services by the American taxpayers.


Verify
at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML <http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML&gt;


9.
$200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed
American wages are caused by the illegal
aliens.


Verify
at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC RI PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC RI PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML&gt;



10.
The illegal aliens in the United States
have a crime rate that's two and a half
times that of white non-illegal aliens.
In particular, their children are going
to make a huge additional crime
problem in the U.S.


Verify
at: http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANscriptS ... t..01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML&gt;



11.
During the year of 2005, there were 4
to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that
crossed our Southern Border, also,
as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from
Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds
of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and
marijuana, crossed into the US from
the Southern border.


Verify
at: Homeland Security Report:


12.
The National policy Institute estimated
that the total cost of mass deportation
would be between $206 and $230 billion
or an average cost of between $41 and
$46 billion annually over a five year
period.


Verify
at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org ... tation.PDF <http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/PDF/deportationPDF&gt;



13.
In 2006, illegal aliens sent home
$45 BILLION in remittances to their
countries of origin.


Verify
at: http://www/. <http://www/..rense.com/general75/niht.htm&gt; rense.com/general75/niht.htm <http://www/..rense.com/general75/niht.htm&gt;


14.
The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration:
Nearly One million sex crimes committed
by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .

Verify
at:
http: // http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml&gt;
<% 20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml&gt;


The total cost is a whopping
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS
A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME,
HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING
THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS
$338,300,000,000.00 WHICH
WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE
THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF
THIS COUNTRY.

FiveB247x

At what does this conversation just boil down to the fact that some people think that since some people have social, economic or substance abuse issues, it's ok to piss all over their rights and make them jump through hoops? You know a good way to save money is too, euthanasia. We could save shit loads of money if we get rid of undesirables in society.. the old, sick, poor and many other groups.. how bout it folks? Seems like many of you are quick to push others into testing or other discriminatory actions in the guise of betterment of society, yet ignore the fact of why these people exisist in the first place. Economic disparity, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and many other similar areas are more so a result of how we run our society compared to laziness or abuse you feel these people purport in society which "uses up our tax dollars". The have-nots in society are representation of us, not the other way around and it's a very overstated and naive belief to think otherwise.

Drowned Out

FiveB247x wrote:

At what does this conversation just boil down to the fact that some people think that since some people have social, economic or substance abuse issues, it's ok to piss all over their rights and make them jump through hoops? You know a good way to save money is too, euthanasia. We could save shit loads of money if we get rid of undesirables in society.. the old, sick, poor and many other groups.. how bout it folks? Seems like many of you are quick to push others into testing or other discriminatory actions in the guise of betterment of society, yet ignore the fact of why these people exisist in the first place. Economic disparity, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and many other similar areas are more so a result of how we run our society compared to laziness or abuse you feel these people purport in society which "uses up our tax dollars". The have-nots in society are representation of us, not the other way around and it's a very overstated and naive belief to think otherwise.

Gotta say man...I thought you'd have a different opinion based on some of our previous discussions about personal responsibility, substance abuse, etc...big thumbs up!

FiveB247x

Nothing is absolute in life and I believe in both, but we'd all be silly to simply paint such issues as all in one direction or the other. It's all in the grey. Anyone who thinks it's all "pull yourself by your boot straps" or it's all "everyone else fault because of the rich or society" is wrong.. it's a combination of both. People in life have a funny habit of being against extreme views and we all can recognize that extremism in any form doesn't usually lead to good sound idea or policy, but people become polar in their beliefs without recognizing it's an extreme view. And in general I typically lean towards personal responsibility on issues and topics which are directly related to our own personal decisions, ones which do not involve outside influence or involvement.

Drowned Out wrote:

Gotta say man...I thought you'd have a different opinion based on some of our previous discussions about personal responsibility, substance abuse, etc...big thumbs up!

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

At what does this conversation just boil down to the fact that some people think that since some people have social, economic or substance abuse issues, it's ok to piss all over their rights and make them jump through hoops? You know a good way to save money is too, euthanasia. We could save shit loads of money if we get rid of undesirables in society.. the old, sick, poor and many other groups.. how bout it folks? Seems like many of you are quick to push others into testing or other discriminatory actions in the guise of betterment of society, yet ignore the fact of why these people exisist in the first place. Economic disparity, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and many other similar areas are more so a result of how we run our society compared to laziness or abuse you feel these people purport in society which "uses up our tax dollars". The have-nots in society are representation of us, not the other way around and it's a very overstated and naive belief to think otherwise.

why is it okay to have me have to drug test, that isn't a violation, but getting benefits should not require that same participation?

FiveB247x

Well that would depend on why you have to do a drug test. If it's work related or particular to your job or union agreement, that isn't something we force everyone in society to do, it's solely reliant on YOUR job and doesn't need to be used on everyone simply because you have to do it. Mind sharing why you have to do a drug test? Secondly, unless we require everyone to have drug tests in society for simply being alive, it is discrimination. You can't make innocent people go through testing because a few bad apples in society abuse the system. It's no different from me telling someone they can't go grocery shopping and can't buy food unless they pass a drug test, and that's an f'n retarded thought and policy, no?

mikepegg44 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

At what does this conversation just boil down to the fact that some people think that since some people have social, economic or substance abuse issues, it's ok to piss all over their rights and make them jump through hoops? You know a good way to save money is too, euthanasia. We could save shit loads of money if we get rid of undesirables in society.. the old, sick, poor and many other groups.. how bout it folks? Seems like many of you are quick to push others into testing or other discriminatory actions in the guise of betterment of society, yet ignore the fact of why these people exisist in the first place. Economic disparity, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and many other similar areas are more so a result of how we run our society compared to laziness or abuse you feel these people purport in society which "uses up our tax dollars". The have-nots in society are representation of us, not the other way around and it's a very overstated and naive belief to think otherwise.

why is it okay to have me have to drug test, that isn't a violation, but getting benefits should not require that same participation?

JOEJOEJOE

The "bad apples" cause inconvenience for EVERYBODY in the world, no matter what their economic or social standing happens to be.

samsonite

FiveB247x wrote:

Well that would depend on why you have to do a drug test. If it's work related or particular to your job or union agreement, that isn't something we force everyone in society to do, it's solely reliant on YOUR job and doesn't need to be used on everyone simply because you have to do it. Mind sharing why you have to do a drug test? Secondly, unless we require everyone to have drug tests in society for simply being alive, it is discrimination. You can't make innocent people go through testing because a few bad apples in society abuse the system. It's no different from me telling someone they can't go grocery shopping and can't buy food unless they pass a drug test, and that's an f'n retarded thought and policy, no?

mikepegg44 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

At what does this conversation just boil down to the fact that some people think that since some people have social, economic or substance abuse issues, it's ok to piss all over their rights and make them jump through hoops? You know a good way to save money is too, euthanasia. We could save shit loads of money if we get rid of undesirables in society.. the old, sick, poor and many other groups.. how bout it folks? Seems like many of you are quick to push others into testing or other discriminatory actions in the guise of betterment of society, yet ignore the fact of why these people exisist in the first place. Economic disparity, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and many other similar areas are more so a result of how we run our society compared to laziness or abuse you feel these people purport in society which "uses up our tax dollars". The have-nots in society are representation of us, not the other way around and it's a very overstated and naive belief to think otherwise.

why is it okay to have me have to drug test, that isn't a violation, but getting benefits should not require that same participation?

i'm not sure where i land on this issue but i don't understand how it can be seen as discrimination. it can't be seen as discrimination against the poor because isn't everybody on welfare poor? so is it discriminatory to drug addicts?

and i think the grocery store analogy is quite a stretch. when someone has a job there are certain requirements in order to keep the job, if you don't meet those requirements you lose your job. maybe one of those requirements is being drug free. so how is it discrimination to put certain requirements on financial assistance? and how is it similar to keeping someone out of a grocery store?

again, i'm not saying this is a good idea, i have my doubts for different reasons, i just don't understand your argument.

Cree Nations

this is bullshit

fife

HeidiJam wrote:

fife wrote:

whygohome wrote:

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.

you raise an interesting question. the question is what do you mean by deserving and non-deserving? i am going to give you 2 stories of peopel i know personally who are on welfare here in Canada.

story one. I have a client who is about 45 years old. he had been working for most of his life in a factory. this factory was closed and he lost his job. he always had an issues with crack but when he was working he would only do it on the weekend. this person tried to find another job but couldn't because in reality he didn't have any education. this guy still does crack once in a blue moon whenever he can find someone who he can split the cost with. he is still actively looking for a job.

Story 2. I have a client who is very young. he's 23. he finished highschool and went to university but got kick out for bad grades. after being kicked out of school, he found a job at a fast food place but kept losing his job becuase he would miss work alot. this person we found out later had a major drinking problem. he is now on welfare here and is not really looking for a job.

Who is the deserving person. i would bet that this law of drug testing would say that the crack user is bad but the drinker is ok.

and by the way these are true stories from people that i work with everyday.

Wouldn't story 1 be on unemployment since he lost his job???

unemployment doesn't last forever. this guy lost his job and then his place as he could afford the rent. not very easy getting a job when you don't have an address. but can anyone explain who is the deserving person here. I think its the crack user.

_

No social good could come of this bill. It would just harm innocent, already-disadvantaged children. Do YOU want to harm innocent children? I know I don't.

FiveB247x

It's discriminatory against poor people because it makes some assumption that people on assistance programs are drug addicts. Drug use is illegal no matter the economic need, status or similar, so why just have the poor have to be tested? Needing food stamps to buy groceries for yourself and/or family isn't contingent on being on drugs or not, it's something some people assume is relevant by stigma, not even really fact. Legally, you'd have a better case trying to pass a law that mandated drug testing for everyone who gets a drivers license cause it could directly effect safety and violation towards others in society. Taking an issue like food stamps and relating it to drug use is more assumption and bias compared to cutting down on corruption of a state sponsored assistance program. Again, if the aim is to clean up assistance programs from corruption, we should be gearing policy to getting people off the programs and into one that emphasizes goals which lead to being off the assistance and having a "regular" life which they can provide for themselves. If the aim of the program is to cut down on drug use, I'm sure there's plenty of better targets than food assistance programs in which rehab and health could be the aim. Most of the "assistance" based programs in our society are failing not solely because of corruption which does exist in any program, but mostly because they are all setup to not motivate to get off them. Whether it's food stamps, low income housing or even immigration, the goal is to should be to incorporate them into normal status in society, but instead they're designed to stay on them because the gap between them and the real world of taking care of yourself/family is far too wide. But that's really the heart of the issue no one wants to talk about - we blame the people mostly when in fact the system is more responsible no matter whether the people try or do not try to get off them.

samsonite wrote:

i'm not sure where i land on this issue but i don't understand how it can be seen as discrimination. it can't be seen as discrimination against the poor because isn't everybody on welfare poor? so is it discriminatory to drug addicts?

and i think the grocery store analogy is quite a stretch. when someone has a job there are certain requirements in order to keep the job, if you don't meet those requirements you lose your job. maybe one of those requirements is being drug free. so how is it discrimination to put certain requirements on financial assistance? and how is it similar to keeping someone out of a grocery store?

again, i'm not saying this is a good idea, i have my doubts for different reasons, i just don't understand your argument.

JOEJOEJOE

_ wrote:

No social good could come of this bill. It would just harm innocent, already-disadvantaged children. Do YOU want to harm innocent children? I know I don't.

Is it better to just let the kids continue being raised by drug users? Plenty of kids already get taken away from their parents. Hopefully this will bring their parent's problems to light a bit earlier.

FiveB247x

So now we're leaving the government in charge of parenting as well? Albeit I agree the state of americans parents are pretty poor, but with that said, isn't the aim to reform for the future not punish which doesn't change the cycle?

Also, why is the implication that the "poor" or people in need of assistance are the only ones who are bad parents or on drugs? A pretty skewed bias to being with on this topic to begin with right?

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

_ wrote:

No social good could come of this bill. It would just harm innocent, already-disadvantaged children. Do YOU want to harm innocent children? I know I don't.

Is it better to just let the kids continue being raised by drug users? Plenty of kids already get taken away from their parents. Hopefully this will bring their parent's problems to light a bit earlier.

samsonite

FiveB247x wrote:

It's discriminatory against poor people because it makes some assumption that people on assistance programs are drug addicts. Drug use is illegal no matter the economic need, status or similar, so why just have the poor have to be tested? Needing food stamps to buy groceries for yourself and/or family isn't contingent on being on drugs or not, it's something some people assume is relevant by stigma, not even really fact. Legally, you'd have a better case trying to pass a law that mandated drug testing for everyone who gets a drivers license cause it could directly effect safety and violation towards others in society. Taking an issue like food stamps and relating it to drug use is more assumption and bias compared to cutting down on corruption of a state sponsored assistance program. Again, if the aim is to clean up assistance programs from corruption, we should be gearing policy to getting people off the programs and into one that emphasizes goals which lead to being off the assistance and having a "regular" life which they can provide for themselves. If the aim of the program is to cut down on drug use, I'm sure there's plenty of better targets than food assistance programs in which rehab and health could be the aim. Most of the "assistance" based programs in our society are failing not solely because of corruption which does exist in any program, but mostly because they are all setup to not motivate to get off them. Whether it's food stamps, low income housing or even immigration, the goal is to should be to incorporate them into normal status in society, but instead they're designed to stay on them because the gap between them and the real world of taking care of yourself/family is far too wide. But that's really the heart of the issue no one wants to talk about - we blame the people mostly when in fact the system is more responsible no matter whether the people try or do not try to get off them.

i completely agree that we should spend much more time and energy at bridging the gap between assistance and the real world. actually much of your point of view is mine as well, but the discrimination thing is still a little shaky to me. "It's discriminatory against poor people because it makes some assumption that people on assistance programs are drug addicts." well, there are people on assistance programs who are drug addicts, that's not discriminatory, it's just a fact. are all people on assistance programs also drug addicts? no, but i don't think anyone has said that. i don't think there is anything wrong, or discriminatory, with making certain requirements of people who are part of the program, including that they pass a drug test. it's not discriminatory for my boss to test me. and "food stamps" have no cash value (as someone else said) but they certainly can be, and are, traded for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

having said all this i absolutely agree that this is not the best way to fix the system. whatever amount addicts are spending on food they won't have anymore and kicking them off the program will not solve the real problem. while it may make it harder for them to find drug money the ones who will really suffer are their children.

so i guess i disagree on why we agree!

JOEJOEJOE

FiveB247x wrote:

So now we're leaving the government in charge of parenting as well? Albeit I agree the state of americans parents are pretty poor, but with that said, isn't the aim to reform for the future not punish which doesn't change the cycle?

Also, why is the implication that the "poor" or people in need of assistance are the only ones who are bad parents or on drugs? A pretty skewed bias to being with on this topic to begin with right?

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

_ wrote:

No social good could come of this bill. It would just harm innocent, already-disadvantaged children. Do YOU want to harm innocent children? I know I don't.

Is it better to just let the kids continue being raised by drug users? Plenty of kids already get taken away from their parents. Hopefully this will bring their parent's problems to light a bit earlier.

Parents of all economic levels can be bad parents and be on drugs. It just so happens that those seeking government assistance are subject to more scrutiny.

Blockhead

FiveB247x wrote:

So now we're leaving the government in charge of parenting as well? Albeit I agree the state of americans parents are pretty poor, but with that said, isn't the aim to reform for the future not punish which doesn't change the cycle?

Also, why is the implication that the "poor" or people in need of assistance are the only ones who are bad parents or on drugs? A pretty skewed bias to being with on this topic to begin with right?

Well, usually when people are on welfare and food stamps they are DEPENDANT on the GOV to give them money. So yes they are in charge. You of the logic that people may do as they please with everybody elses money. There is so much abuse of the system, that it is now a lifestyle passed from generation to generation, why do you think that 14,15,16 year old in welfare families get pregnant so often??? Because they see their parent get rewarded (money) when they have a kid. I would say its a good assumption that if you are on welfare and you have children (that you can not afford) yes you are a bad parent because you don't have the means to meet the basic needs for that child. That is terrible parenting.
Saying its discrimination is absurd, thats like saying its discrimination to children, by making your children brush their teeth. If you can't afford to take care of your self or family and you have to rely on the gov for basic needs, you aren't in any place to tell them what they can and can't do. If they want to drug test and thats part of the welfare process then they must do that, if they don't like it, they can get job.