Drug Testing for Welfare - Help Me See the Light

[Despare]

Apparently I'm wrong for thinking people who receive welfare should be required to take a drug test. I don't see why. It's not a political thing, race thing, or class thing... but if millions of people have to take a drug test to keep or earn their employment why is this wrong? Somebody explain to me what I'm missing...

[ManchestrMorgue]

Somebody explain to me what I'm missing...

Quite clearly, you are missing the fact that the government has a responsibility to support people's drug habits. Also, the consumption of illicit drugs has been proven to improve one's parenting skills and readiness to become a productive member of society.

Money well spent if you ask me.

[TheWickerFan]

Alright, I'll give it a shot.

One of the major problems I have with drug testing is how inaccurate they have been. If someone had the poor judgment to eat a poppy seed bagel within the past few days, they could get a life-ruining false positive. Even assuming they could perfect the test, what exactly does it gain to find out someone smoked a joint within the past week? Was it affecting their work? Were they hurting anybody? You wouldn't need a drug test to figure out if an employee was becoming a liability. I think there are only a handful of professions that could benefit from drug testing (pilots , for example); others I think are completely unnecessary, degrading, and bordering on an invasion of privacy.

You'll have to explain why people on welfare should be tested for drugs, because I have the feeling this is an excuse to stop giving them money. The Republican's attitude has always been that welfare recipients are nothing but leeches anyway, so any excuse to cut them off would be just fine with them.

[Elvis_Christ]

I disagree with it because it's assuming people are automatically guilty of taking drugs. If someone is showing signs of drug use in the workplace then ok by all means have them undergo a compulsory test. Until then there really is no right to do so in my eyes.

I hate how people are in the mentality that if you're innocent (in this case using drugs) you've got nothing to worry about. It's slowly eroding people's civil liberties because they are blind to it because it "doesn't effect them".

In the case of people on welfare it is a "political, class and race thing" actually. Every time shit like this gets brought it up it's usually because a scapegoat is needed. Anyone who buys into shit like that makes me fucking sick.

Like your going to get taxed less or your taxes will go somewhere else you think they're needed more if you cut the big bad drug using boogeyman off welfare.... give me a fucking break. You'll be frothing at the mouth demanding the blood of the next group of demonised people when shit doesn't change.

You're just turning the world into one big jail cell with every act like this you condone.

[AmericanManiac]

I have to agree with this, drug test the hell out of them. I work first hand with lower income families on a daily basis. I have to go out into their homes and some of the stuff I see you would not believe.

There are many people who are on welfare for the reason it is there. I don't mind helping these individuals and their families out. It's when I walk into a house with 5 kids and the parents have drugs and drug paraphernalia right out in the open. They don't want to help themselves they just want the free ride. They were raised on it, and they use the system to their own benefit. They're LAZY. The only thing bad about this is what would happen to the kids?

Don't tell me about the economy and there are no jobs. If they would actually get out there they can find one even if its fast food.

[cheebacheeba]

It really depends upon the situation.
No, I don't think it should be a mandatory means test in order to get onto some kind of welfare if a person appears functional and not under the influence.
Of course if they rocked up and were clearly incapable of operating, an obvious junkie or some such...while I don't think they should be *not* able to collect any kind of welfare, but I think in order to do so they should be given the opportunity to attend rehab/quit or whatever they need to do, so that it's not a case of "The govt is paying for their drug habit" rather that they're supporting recovery.
If that then failed, sure perhaps some kind of cut off.

Of course this would require ongoing monitoring of many individual situations, and I don't know about anywhere else, but here, I don't think the existing resources would be there to do it properly.

Should a person be forced to quit drugs in order to receive benefits?
I don't think so. I mean, I believe that everyone should be at least functional and not on a downward spiral, but quitting? To the point there was no traces in their system? That's a bit much.

I mean...I myself have been a welfare recipient.
I've smoked/vaped weed throughout the time - though I've always been actively seeking or involved in employment or studies. I haven't sat around my house doing nothing and/or engaging in a criminal lifestyle (I don't acknowledge laws that protect alcohol and demonise weed), I have always had a responsible and realistic budget and generally speaking I try to be a productive person.
I'm sure that the same could be said of a lot of people that are on welfare for one reason or another.
(That said, I think heroin ought to be completely shut down.)

There are other things that should be taken into account before testing is even introduced.
*Observation upon application
*How long have they been on welfare
*Mental health
*How long since they've "functioned" eg, held some kind of job or study routine.
(there's probably more)
At this point, it could be determined a bit more thoroughly whether or not being a recipient of welfare would simply be an enabling process to remain stagnant and be a "drug addict" or if it in fact was helping them - whether or not they use drugs in their personal lives - to move forward, handle other expenses with responsibility and lead a productive life.

So yes, while I think that some kind of drug testing could serve a purpose, I think that there's a few things to take into account.

However, as I said before resources are often pretty limited, and very often govt departments and employees are the "bare minimum" sort to begin with.
To implement and maintain this kind of system is simply unfeasible.
So then what you're left with is
A: Lumping in people who say, like to smoke a bit of weed as their preferred relaxant (similar to an occasional or even nightly drinker) with people who stick needles in their arms and rob people for their next fix because they've already injected/snorted everything the govt has supplied to them.
B: Don't do the drug testing until drug ABuse becomes a clear and prevalent factor.
C: Simply set other obligations to meet that ensure a person is maintaining a lifestyle of a certain amount of activity when it comes to jobs or study.

A sounds pretty shithouse.
B sounds fine to me, but again seems unrealistic.
C where I live this is what they're doing already.

I know I myself would be pretty offended if I'd been laid off full time employment (this has happened to me) had a bit of difficulty finding another job, ended up having to support myself through welfare for a while and was handed a cup to piss in the moment I arrived.

[newb]

It really depends upon the situation.
No, I don't think it should be a mandatory means test in order to get onto some kind of welfare if a person appears functional and not under the influence.
Of course if they rocked up and were clearly incapable of operating, an obvious junkie or some such...while I don't think they should be *not* able to collect any kind of welfare, but I think in order to do so they should be given the opportunity to attend rehab/quit or whatever they need to do, so that it's not a case of "The govt is paying for their drug habit" rather that they're supporting recovery.
If that then failed, sure perhaps some kind of cut off.

Of course this would require ongoing monitoring of many individual situations, and I don't know about anywhere else, but here, I don't think the existing resources would be there to do it properly.

Should a person be forced to quit drugs in order to receive benefits?
I don't think so. I mean, I believe that everyone should be at least functional and not on a downward spiral, but quitting? To the point there was no traces in their system? That's a bit much.

I mean...I myself have been a welfare recipient.
I've smoked/vaped weed throughout the time - though I've always been actively seeking or involved in employment or studies. I haven't sat around my house doing nothing and/or engaging in a criminal lifestyle (I don't acknowledge laws that protect alcohol and demonise weed), I have always had a responsible and realistic budget and generally speaking I try to be a productive person.
I'm sure that the same could be said of a lot of people that are on welfare for one reason or another.
(That said, I think heroin ought to be completely shut down.)

There are other things that should be taken into account before testing is even introduced.
*Observation upon application
*How long have they been on welfare
*Mental health
*How long since they've "functioned" eg, held some kind of job or study routine.
(there's probably more)
At this point, it could be determined a bit more thoroughly whether or not being a recipient of welfare would simply be an enabling process to remain stagnant and be a "drug addict" or if it in fact was helping them - whether or not they use drugs in their personal lives - to move forward, handle other expenses with responsibility and lead a productive life.

So yes, while I think that some kind of drug testing could serve a purpose, I think that there's a few things to take into account.

However, as I said before resources are often pretty limited, and very often govt departments and employees are the "bare minimum" sort to begin with.
To implement and maintain this kind of system is simply unfeasible.
So then what you're left with is
A: Lumping in people who say, like to smoke a bit of weed as their preferred relaxant (similar to an occasional or even nightly drinker) with people who stick needles in their arms and rob people for their next fix because they've already injected/snorted everything the govt has supplied to them.
B: Don't do the drug testing until drug ABuse becomes a clear and prevalent factor.
C: Simply set other obligations to meet that ensure a person is maintaining a lifestyle of a certain amount of activity when it comes to jobs or study.

A sounds pretty shithouse.
B sounds fine to me, but again seems unrealistic.
C where I live this is what they're doing already.

I know I myself would be pretty offended if I'd been laid off full time employment (this has happened to me) had a bit of difficulty finding another job, ended up having to support myself through welfare for a while and was handed a cup to piss in the moment I arrived.

I gotta say......Cheebs..I don't always agree with everything you say....but we've been forum posting together for what......8 years...and you most always have really thought out responses......kudos brother.


and I do happen to agree with you on this one:D

[Sistinas666]

I have to piss clean to have a job, the least they can do is piss clean not to have a job.

[The Villain]

If you're stupid enough to do drugs while also needing welfare and can afford and choose to spend your money on drugs while needing welfare then you don't deserve it.

[Ferox13]

If you're stupid enough to do drugs while also needing welfare and can afford and choose to spend your money on drugs while needing welfare then you don't deserve it.

Better to spend the money on legal drugs like booze.

Drug testing is expensive and not that accurate.

Also are people considering marijuana one of the drugs they should be testing for?

[Sistinas666]

Better to spend the money on legal drugs like booze.

Drug testing is expensive and not that accurate.

Also are people considering marijuana one of the drugs they should be testing for?


Yes. Smoking reefer is a luxury, not a right.

[Ferox13]

Yes. Smoking reefer is a luxury, not a right.

Then they should test for alcohol as well?

[Fearonsarms]

Then they should test for alcohol as well?

100% agreed

[Fearonsarms]

Coincidentally I am actually completely against drug testing for welfare-I hope the people for it get made redundant then get their Welfare stopped due to drinking alcohol then get made homeless and see how they like it.

[ChronoGrl]

I find drug testing to be not entirely accurate and also an invasion of privacy. It bothers me that I had to give not one, but two drug tests over the course of my time here (once when I started with the consulting agency and once when I was hired perm). What bothers me is this:

a. What if it gave a false positive because of something that I ate?
b. What if it gave a true positive because I had legitimately smoked marijuana?

To be honest, who CARES if I like to smoke recreationally? As long as it doesn't get in the way of me showing up for work and doing my job, I don't think that it's my company's business. I'm a fucking "business analyst" - My job in no way shape or form impacts the lives or health of anyone else... I agree with Wicker - If drug testing should be enforced, I think that it should be for workers who perform jobs that impact other's lives (doctors, air traffic controllers, pilots, drives, etc.).

Also, as it has been mentioned, I find it ridiculous that companies test for "DRUGS" but not for alcohol.

Anyway - Building on that rant, Should people be drug tested for Welfare?

No. Not with the way that drug testing currently exists in that it lumps people who smoke weed in with people who do "harder" substances. Also, I think that if we want to be stringent, alcohols should be considered a drug.

In my example above with my workplace - I find it a violation of my privacy that I could be tested. However, if, say, my recreational habits impede my ability to work, then I think I should be penalized - Same thing if I'm lazy and sucky at my job (sober), then I should be penalized.

My point is that my work value should be judged based on work performance and not whether or not I pee clean.

Same issue with Welfare:

a. If people think that people on Welfare are "lazy" and "not looking for jobs" and "taking advantage of the system," then there should be clear goals that they must meet (e.g. Must prove that they are looking for/interviewing for jobs, etc.) in order to receive their Welfare checks.
b. If people think that people on Welfare are spending money on drugs and alcohol instead of food, clothing, etc., then perhaps Welfare should provide more foodstamps and WIC instead of flat money, ensuring that people are spending it on what they need.


I don't think that drug testing is the answer - I think that there are other ways to identify people who may be abusing the system and/or curtailing abuse.

[Fearonsarms]

Just as an added note-I ONCE did a job that involved me working in a prison-to my horror I discovered that inmates got around the random drug testing by smoking heroin instead of weed-Why?Because heroin leaves their system in 48hours whereas weed stays in their system for 4weeks! So people would go into prison for smoking/dealing weed and come out heroin addicts. So for those who think drug testing is a good idea-remember its more likely to catch weed smokers than heroin smokers. DRUG TESTING DOES NOT WORK-plus its easy to throw stones at other people's glass houses.

[ZombieDrone]

Personally, I think that drug tests shouldn't apply for welfare, simply because it's for the most part unnecassarily inefficient.

I'm currently recieving job seeking benefit after graduating university with a degree (fingers crossed it seems more than likely that I'll be employed on thursday thanks to a job I applied for have asked about choosing shifts and I've had o fill in a lot of paper work, sign employment contracts etc.) and support people being given benefits if they need it as I'm something of a Democratic-Socialist (NOT a Communist as some people believe, if that were true Scandinavia would be the new Soviet Union)

I'm a teetotaller who doesn't take anything stronger than caffiene, and I imagine the vast majority of job applicants don't take drugs, perhaps I'm being naive. It would be far too time consuming to drug test everyone for drugs, imo, and would rarely yield any significant results. Not to mention that under the circumstances I think it's a strong breach of privacy.

I do agree that it's good to have tests if it's require for the job or if it has a major impact like mentioned earlier with drivers, doctors etc.

[FreddyMyers]

Cheebs ans Chrono nailed it. At 18 my sister had a child with a scumbag who basically disappeared afterwards. Couple that with undependable/unreliable parents, and medical issuse for years now and youll have a reasoning for welfare or gvmnt help. It was nothing but nitemares obtaining the assistance needed b/c of the people who never try to better their situation or just use up the money on drugs or alcohol. She doesnt drink or smoke and is in no way a bad person but b/c the gvrnmt is so busy dealing with people ive seen firsthand that can only be described as filth, my sister had to wait weeks and months or be sent from office to office just to get her all the paper work it would take to get her assisitance.

The whole time while on it if she made too much money she was immidiatly taken off it. The cut off line was so low though(Cant remember the amount) that the welfare system was keeping her from getting into a better situation. Make too much-your cut off, have go back on it-two weeks worth of paper work through about 8 different offices. Like i said, a nitemare. Medical issues kept her from working the 40 hrs a week like most. The money coming from the 20 hrs was too much for her to stay on welfare yet def wasnt enough to live off of. Years of dealing with that while crackheads and severe alcohol abusers got their check every two weeks left me rather bitter reguarding this issue. In my opinion it should be easier to get for the people that need it to bouce back and harder for the ones who dont give a shit and want nothing more to do than simply live the lifestyle provided by the gvrnmnts allowed income.

Provide a means of changing the lifestyle that got you onto welfare. Whether thats via drugtesting or whateverthefuck, seems like their lazy on the efforts of improving the quality of life for that demographic. I think the area where i live had alot to do with the issues me and my sis had i.e. Asbury Park region which has high end income on one side of the tracks and a notorious poverty on the other. I really hope its not like that around the rest of the country. If so that is scary.

Sorry for the rant.......couldnt help it

[Elvis_Christ]

This thread has been great for seeing who I'd actually get along with outside of the board.

[Ferox13]

This thread has been great for seeing who I'd actually get along with outside of the board.

True dat....

[Sistinas666]

Then they should test for alcohol as well?



Yes, alcohol is a luxury as well. You will get no arguement from me there.

[Sistinas666]

Weed and beers are cool if you can afford them. First priority is taking care of your family though. If you are so broke and destitute that you can't buy diapers or food you but you have money for beer and drugs, then you are wrong.


Don't get me wrong, i drink beer and smoke daily, but you need to get your priorities straight if you are on welfare. I have absolutely no problem with people or the drugs or the booze but you must have priorities. Feeding my children is much more important than me getting high.


All in all my point is this: If you can not afford doing drugs then do not make your children suffer. Every hit is a bowl of food you have stolen from your child.

[Ferox13]

All in all my point is this: If you can not afford doing drugs then do not make your children suffer. Every hit is a bowl of food you have stolen from your child.

Dramatic much..lol...

I'm not sure how unemployment works in Bible Belt Buckle, Kuntzass but do you not pay tax/stamps as a sort of insurance incase you get laid off etc? It seems to be that way most places.

So if your company lays you off, are you not entitled to benefit for a period of time while you try look for a new job? So during this period, if you have a beer or 2 then you shouldn't get welfare?

I am also confused, you say you ' drink beer and smoke daily' but 'have to piss clean to have a job', how does this work?

And for the record, do 'illegal drugs' but enjoy the odd cider...

[Sistinas666]

Dramatic much..lol...

I'm not sure how unemployment works in Bible Belt Buckle, Kuntzass but do you not pay tax/stamps as a sort of insurance incase you get laid off etc? It seems to be that way most places.

So if your company lays you off, are you not entitled to benefit for a period of time while you try look for a new job? So during this period, if you have a beer or 2 then you shouldn't get welfare?

I am also confused, you say you ' drink beer and smoke daily' but 'have to piss clean to have a job', how does this work?

And for the record, do 'illegal drugs' but enjoy the odd cider...


Were I am unemployment benefits and welfare are 2 entirely different things. Yes, I;ve paid into unemployment for as long as I have worked. This is the first time I have used it in my years. Beer is legal, weed is not in the stAtes. I'm not saying that is a good thing as I believe weed is much less harmful to your body in the long run. I in no way support my governments war on drugs. It is a waste of time, money, and innocent peoples lives.\

Yes I smoke daily and drink a few beers atleast 3 or 4 times a week, but I can afford the beer, weed, and piss cleaning kits. If you can't afford to get high and afford a piss clean kit then you can't justify getting high and crying when you lose your job for a dirty UA.

My point is: If you can't afford to do drugs/booze then do not do them. People on welfare obviosly cannot afford to do dope and cannot afford a piss test cleaner so they should not do it. If you are a recreational drug user that is your right if YOU CAN AFFORD IT, if not my tax dollars should not go to support a junkie who is on welfares habit.

I am not "anti-drugs"at all...I'm high right now but I can AFFORD to be. If are putting a roof over your families head and you are struggling with money you have no business buying beer or weed. I am not saying everyone on welfare is a junky but its not my intention to champion the USA's welfare system. Its fucked up and full of dopers. If they have nothing to hide then they will have no problem pissing for free money.

[Ferox13]

Thats kinda of a confusin reply:

Were I am unemployment benefits and welfare are 2 entirely different things.

Not sure what that means.

But your arguement seems to be if you can afford to use a 'cleaning kits' then its ok. Even though your job dictates you shouldn't take illegal drugs, like the situation you are in now.

My point is: If you can't afford to do drugs/booze then do not do them. People on welfare obviosly cannot afford to do dope and cannot afford a piss test cleaner so they should not do it.

People on welfare obviously do drugs and drink, They don't need a piss test for either (yet) and I'm sure if it comes to it they will find a cheap way to cheat it just like you are too. I really think that testing people on welfare for drugs/alcohol is pretty drastic. Being denied welfare for having a beer with a friend or a glass of wine over dinner can't be right.

Also do you have a source for the welfare system being 'fucked up and full of dopers'. Anything I have read is contrary to that.

[Sistinas666]

Thats kinda of a confusin reply:



Not sure what that means.

But your arguement seems to be if you can afford to use a 'cleaning kits' then its ok. Even though your job dictates you shouldn't take illegal drugs, like the situation you are in now.



People on welfare obviously do drugs and drink, They don't need a piss test for either (yet) and I'm sure if it comes to it they will find a cheap way to cheat it just like you are too. I really think that testing people on welfare for drugs/alcohol is pretty drastic. Being denied welfare for having a beer with a friend or a glass of wine over dinner can't be right.

Also do you have a source for the welfare system being 'fucked up and full of dopers'. Anything I have read is contrary to that.

I have no sources, no. I just know that almost all the junkies I have met in my life are on gov assist. The source I refer to is my way of seeing. I grew up dirt poor and have seen what goes on...Poor parenting leads to poor desissions and possibly much worse.Yes, i beat weed and beer tests with the aid of some products but I bought the weed and a way to get around a piss test. I can afford that but any hippy off the street isn;t that smart.


Basically what I mean is if you like to smoke, then by all means smoke...If you can't smoke, keep a job,and take care of your own family...DO NOT PUT THE NEEDS OF YOUR FAMILY BEHiND A DRUG.


My point is Ferox. I can afford to smoke and drink, no one else is picking up my slack....What I mean is yes, its ok to get down and party as long as you want and take responsability for your own actions.

We could start an internet group for those poor people getting busted...Or we could give a shit About them and truck on with our own lives. I do not feel sorry for anyone who gets busted for being high, we all know what we are doing....the risk.....the gamble.....CAN YOU AFFORD THE FINE IF CAUGHT?

If not then stop whinning about the price of weed...IF YOUR CHILDREN DIDN'T HAVE A PROPER MEAL BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT "AFFORD" IT, then you didn't need the shit, you need to take care of your family and not worry about getting high. I believe reefer should be legal but that doesn't change the way i feel about responsability.


If you can afford to drink or smoke then you can take care of your family without welfare. Bottom line

[Ferox13]

I'm not really sure what you are arguing against here - I am stating that people who have a few beers or a spliff at the weekend should not be denied welfare because of this..

You are taking this to some illogical claim about 'junkies I have met in my life' who don't feed their children because of their habit. That is a totally different thing.

[Sistinas666]

I guess by junkies I am including drunks and pot heads who cannot manage their lives, get assistance, and use that to fund their habit. Granted, I do understand not every drunk or pothead is on assistance or vice versa. If it is a saturday night, you recieve assistance, and know you might have a piss test any time between monday and friday, why take the chance? I don't know about you but my jobs have always given randoms. Everytime I toke up I know I am running a risk and putting my job on the line. I have kits for that that I paid for, not the tax payer. If I fuck up and test positive no one cries for me, you want to play then you must be willing to pay.

To sum it up: Why should the working man be held to a higher standard than a welfare recipient? Nobody protests when more and more companies require mandatory urine analysis's, but people make a stink that people who get free money paid for by you have to take a leak in a cup? That just doesn't jibe with me...

Also, don't get me wrong, I am all for decriminalization of ALL drugs. Its like abortion to me, its your body, you make the call. If you want to sit around doing heroin all day then thats fine as long as you do not infringe on me. Its not for some shriveled up congressmans decision to make.

For a guy like me what does it matter? Should I continue doing drugs, risking my job, and wasting my money on cleaner kits or just say fuck it and go on welfare?If I do the later I don't have to worry about piss tests, doing any work, or worry about taking care of my family. If I had no self respect I guess I'd go on welfare and take the easy life...

Where is the incentive for welfare recipients to work?

[ChronoGrl]

I think that there's another key point that's being missed here - Drug testing is expensive.

Your company chooses compulsory and random drug-testing - Your company pays for it.

If welfare recipients need to take drug tests to receive welfare - The taxpayer pays for it.

Huge difference. You're arguing the principal that "the working man [is] held to a higher standard than a welfare recipient" - It's your company who is holding you to these standards, not the government. Don't like your company's drug policy? Then leave.

Also, if THIS is your major concern:

Where is the incentive for welfare recipients to work?

How does drug testing incentivise a person to look for jobs? I do not see the connection at all. If you want to talk about incentives, how about people on welfare/job assistance must "prove" that they are looking for jobs (e.g. doing job searches, going for interviews, going to school to get a degree). I would so much rather spend my tax dollars on case workers who work with welfare families and coach them on job-finding as well as provide them with rehabilitation recommendations (if necessary) instead of drug testing. I believe in teaching/rehabilitation instead of incrimination - Drug tests assume that people on welfare are criminals.

I still don't see how drug testing solves the problem. What are you going to do if someone fails their drug test? Throw them out on the streets? Throw them in jail? It's what we're doing now with the War On Drugs - Spending money to house people who are caught possessing weed - It's pretty ridiculous.

If your core complaint is THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR JOBS then they should have to prove that they are looking for jobs in order to continue welfare. As I mentioned, I'd rather pay for case workers who can provide this support instead of drug testing.

If your core complaint is THEY ARE SPENDING WELFARE MONEY ON DRUGS then perhaps welfare should be distributed more as foodstamps/WIC instead of a check or cash.

I still don't understand how drug testing solves the above.

[Sistinas666]

Don't like your company's drug policy? Then leave. .

I assume you have never been tested for a job?I can't remember the last time I applied for a job that didn't require pee.

My point has been a bit lost in my last few posts as I am on leave from work and have been high as hell on oxycodone(prescribed) since last friday. I have also been smoking hella weed and drank a few beers during....I am currently pn a LOA from my job, no pay, I must rely on my savings until a doc releases me to work again.

In all, no, I don't think anyone should be drug tested unless they show signs of being a threat. Many of us can function on weed or alcohol but I feel the unemployed should be as monitored as those of us who are employed...

[Sistinas666]

Also, because I have a problem with my companies drug policy does not mean I can just "leave". I could do that but who will ultimately foot the bill? Who will take care of my 3 dependants if I quite to show my protest

[ChronoGrl]

In my first ranty post I said that I've been tested twice for my current job, found it an invasion of privacy, and do not agree with drug testing unless your job responsibilities impact the lives of others.

Can't quit your job? Then quit complaining. :-P

[Despare]

In my first ranty post I said that I've been tested twice for my current job, found it an invasion of privacy, and do not agree with drug testing unless your job responsibilities impact the lives of others.

Can't quit your job? Then quit complaining. :-P

Ah see, so an employer can request a drug test for any employee at any time but we can't test a welfare recipient who may show signs of drugs abuse? Oh, before you argue about the "signs" don't get one me because the police can pull you over in any state and search you because you may show them... they're already in place. I can't believe weed was mention so much either, but how can we not have the option to test somebody receiving government money if they show signs of real drug abuse? Anyway, some good points by all but for those of you talking about smoking weed while on welfare; how? How'd you get the stuff if you need government money to help keep you afloat? Grow lights, good soil... it's expensive even when you grow it yourself. Anyway, off topic, I still think we need the option to test people for competency before paying them to be a layabout (no I'm not saying all welfare recipients are layabouts so if you were planning on putting those words in mouth you can back off now). :)

[ChronoGrl]

Ah see, so an employer can request a drug test for any employee at any time but we can't test a welfare recipient who may show signs of drugs abuse?

Actually quite a few people in this thread who are against drug testing said that they support it if the individual is showing signs of abuse so before you have a fucking hissy you may want to read all arguments.

There is a difference between ALL PEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR WELFARE MUST BE DRUG TESTED IN ORDER TO RECEIVE BENEFITES and PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND IF THEY APPEAR TO BE USING THEY SHOULD BE TESTED.

I'm arguing against the FORMER for all of the reasons that I previously mentioned and vehemently support REHABILITATION along with other alternatives to blanket testing that I mentioned. Honestly, I haven't really addressed the details of the latter (to be honest, I do think that if we go down the case worker route and someone is clearly using, the first step to getting them to rehab is most likely a drug test but I haven't given it much thought because I am honestly more troubled by fucking assholes who clearly never needed social services who think EVERYONE ON WELFARE IS LAZY AND A JUNKIE AND MY TAXES PAY FOR THEM THEREFORE TEST THE SHIT OUT OF THEM TO MAKE SURE MAI WELL EARNED MONEY IS NOT SPENT ON DRUGS UR BOOZE IT'S MY MONEY SO I CAN TELL THOSE LAZY IRRESPONSIBLE FUCKS HOW TO SPEND IT) so don't give me shitty comparisons to people who get drug tested by the police because I never said that I was against testing people who are obviously under the influence (on welfare or otherwise)

As I mentioned before: Worried that people on welfare are spending it on drugs or drug paraphernalia? Perhaps we should have more currency like food stamps that controls what a person can spend it on. Still cheaper than blanket drug testing.

All I'm saying is that I'm against blanket testing for ALL welfare recipients. I've given my reason why and have offered alternative solutions to the problem.

[Sistinas666]

@ Chrono, I know many, many foodstamp recipients who will happily take you to the store with them and let you shop for your groceries and them walk up to the cashier and pay for it all with their "vision card"(thats what they get here in Kansas, its similiar to a debit card but the balance can only be used on grocery items).

The going rate is that you pay them 50 cents for every dollar you spend. Thats right, you can get your groceries for half price. If it is a meth head(we have a huge problem with them in Kansas) you can sometimes get your food for 25 cents for every dollar.


What I am saying is no matter what method is used to try and make it legit they will get around it. Someone will always figure out a way "screw the system". Currency like the old fashioned food stamps just will not work.Have I taken advantage of this? Yes I have. If they don't plan on feeding their families atleast I can use it to feed mine.

I also believe in rehabilitation but isn't that a double edged sword? Does a person who fails a drug test because he smoked a joint 3 weeks ago deserve the same treatment as a meth/heroin addict who has mainlined for the past 6 years?

[ChronoGrl]

I know - Unfortunately there are always people who will take advantage. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. - I don't necessarily think that upping food stamps is the answer, but I think it's another way to address the concern. I guess the bleeding heart liberal comes out in cases like this - I would rather make sure that everyone who legitimately needs welfare gets it while also accepting those who abuse it... Instead of making the hurdles so high that it prevents people who legitimately need welfare from claiming it.

To be honest, when it comes down to it, junkies will always find a way to score drugs, regardless of the system. Addiction is a disease. There's only so much that the government can do to serve the people who actually need this help while curtailing abuse. I guess that's a little off topic, but I don't pretend to offer up any END ALL BE ALL answer here.

Also, I think that people who are legitimately addicted should be dealt with separately from welfare recipients in general.

The initial question posed is: Should all welfare recipients piss clean in order to receive benefits? No. For all of the aforementioned reasons.

The new question that we're posing is: If a particular welfare recipient who is clearly a junkie mess wants to claim their welfare, I think that they should be treated separately - Either through a rehabilitation program or through calling the police, but presumably there will be a drug test involved, though I don't know if it would necessarily be administered by the welfare office (if they engage the police, for example), but I'm just splitting hairs here.


I also believe in rehabilitation but isn't that a double edged sword? Does a person who fails a drug test because he smoked a joint 3 weeks ago deserve the same treatment as a meth/heroin addict who has mainlined for the past 6 years?

I think there's a disconnect here - That's not what I'm saying and is exactly why I'm against compulsory testing (be it for a job or to receive welfare in general) - I'm of the mindset where if someone is absolutely plowed/f'd up out of their mind and they walk in for welfare (or, really, in general, but we're taking the welfare case as the example), they should be dealt with either by calling the police or moving forward with rehabilitation case work... I don't consider the casual pot smoker to be part of this group. As I mentioned before, I think that people should be judged based on their performance (example: If I show up to work plowed or just suck at my job, I should probably be fired... to extend that example, if I show up for welfare plowed, I should probably be put into a rehabilitation program)

Maybe I'm not being clear:


I don't think that drug testing should be enforced for every person who applies for/receives welfare - That's the main issue that I'm arguing against here - And I think that we actually agree on this.
If someone shows up in the welfare office and they are clearly using, then they should be dealt with through the measures mentioned above. I don't exactly know the "how," but this case is different than just testing everyone who comes through the door asking for a welfare check - I think that we actually agree on this too.

[Sistinas666]

I know - Unfortunately there are always people who will take advantage. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. - I don't necessarily think that upping food stamps is the answer, but I think it's another way to address the concern. I guess the bleeding heart liberal comes out in cases like this - I would rather make sure that everyone who legitimately needs welfare gets it while also accepting those who abuse it... Instead of making the hurdles so high that it prevents people who legitimately need welfare from claiming it.

To be honest, when it comes down to it, junkies will always find a way to score drugs, regardless of the system. Addiction is a disease. There's only so much that the government can do to serve the people who actually need this help while curtailing abuse. I guess that's a little off topic, but I don't pretend to offer up any END ALL BE ALL answer here.

Also, I think that people who are legitimately addicted should be dealt with separately from welfare recipients in general.

The initial question posed is: Should all welfare recipients piss clean in order to receive benefits? No. For all of the aforementioned reasons.

The new question that we're posing is: If a particular welfare recipient who is clearly a junkie mess wants to claim their welfare, I think that they should be treated separately - Either through a rehabilitation program or through calling the police, but presumably there will be a drug test involved, though I don't know if it would necessarily be administered by the welfare office (if they engage the police, for example), but I'm just splitting hairs here.




I think there's a disconnect here - That's not what I'm saying and is exactly why I'm against compulsory testing (be it for a job or to receive welfare in general) - I'm of the mindset where if someone is absolutely plowed/f'd up out of their mind and they walk in for welfare (or, really, in general, but we're taking the welfare case as the example), they should be dealt with either by calling the police or moving forward with rehabilitation case work... I don't consider the casual pot smoker to be part of this group. As I mentioned before, I think that people should be judged based on their performance (example: If I show up to work plowed or just suck at my job, I should probably be fired... to extend that example, if I show up for welfare plowed, I should probably be put into a rehabilitation program)

Maybe I'm not being clear:


I don't think that drug testing should be enforced for every person who applies for/receives welfare - That's the main issue that I'm arguing against here - And I think that we actually agree on this.
If someone shows up in the welfare office and they are clearly using, then they should be dealt with through the measures mentioned above. I don't exactly know the "how," but this case is different than just testing everyone who comes through the door asking for a welfare check - I think that we actually agree on this too.


I think we are very close to an agreement.

[ChronoGrl]

I think we are very close to an agreement.

Sweet - Want to go take some of your pain meds and have a drink? :D

[Sistinas666]

Sweet - Want to go take some of your pain meds and have a drink? :D


Lol-yep!

I can understand why a person would want to feel like I do atm, all the time...Its nice....

[bwind22]

I have no problem whatsoever with the government mandating drug screening for people receiving government handouts. Who wants to see their tax dollars intended for the genuinely needy, handed out to some addict loser that's just too lazy to get a job? I can't fathom anyone other than a drug addict freeloader fearful that he'll be cut off objecting to this so it's quite a surprise to me that this thread is as long as it is. (No, I didn't read the whole thing so I do apologize if some of my post is redundant.) They are standing in line asking the working class taxpayers to pay for all their shit. The taxpayers should have every right to make sure they aren't blowing their free paycheck on drugs. That's my 2 cents.

[Sistinas666]

I have no problem whatsoever with the government mandating drug screening for people receiving government handouts. Who wants to see their tax dollars intended for the genuinely needy, handed out to some addict loser that's just too lazy to get a job? I can't fathom anyone other than a drug addict freeloader fearful that he'll be cut off objecting to this so it's quite a surprise to me that this thread is as long as it is. (No, I didn't read the whole thing so I do apologize if some of my post is redundant.) They are standing in line asking the working class taxpayers to pay for all their shit. The taxpayers should have every right to make sure they aren't blowing their free paycheck on drugs. That's my 2 cents.


Thats what I'm saying...If you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't matter that the only thing you have to do for money is pee. Most people have to work 40 hours a week AND piss, why should someone who doesn't have to work and only piss bitch?

Granted I do not think random piss tests will keep junkies off of welfare...piss tests are easy to beat. I smoke pot so I am constantly in possession of a $50 urine cleaning kit for my job. They will do the same shit to get their benefits so it is probably useless to even attempt it.

[Fearonsarms]

Thats what I'm saying...If you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't matter that the only thing you have to do for money is pee. Most people have to work 40 hours a week AND piss, why should someone who doesn't have to work and only piss bitch?

Granted I do not think random piss tests will keep junkies off of welfare...piss tests are easy to beat. I smoke pot so I am constantly in possession of a $50 urine cleaning kit for my job. They will do the same shit to get their benefits so it is probably useless to even attempt it.

OK if you have nothing to hide then you won't mind the cops raiding your property at four in the morning and searching it to PROVE that you have nothing to hide cos that is exactly what you are advocating.

[Sistinas666]

OK if you have nothing to hide then you won't mind the cops raiding your property at four in the morning and searching it to PROVE that you have nothing to hide cos that is exactly what you are advocating.


No, no, no. There is a huge difference between voluntarily pissing in a cup to provide for your family and being raided. Thats like saying that just because my job gives me a urine test that its also ok for my boss to search my house at any time. Not even close to the same thing...

[Ferox13]

The test aren't that reliable, are easy to beat and will cost money to administer.

So basically what will happen is that the government will spend more money to test welfare recipients for illegal drugs.

The response to this is that the welfare recipients who do take illegal will spend the government money they receive on kits to cheat the tests. Isn't there some sort of irony here.

[Sistinas666]

The test aren't that reliable, are easy to beat and will cost money to administer.

So basically what will happen is that the government will spend more money to test welfare recipients for illegal drugs.

The response to this is that the welfare recipients who do take illegal will spend the government money they receive on kits to cheat the tests. Isn't there some sort of irony here.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think testing welfare recipients is going to fix any kind of drug epidemic. I doubt it would even make a scratch on the surface. I don't even think this is a step in the right direction to fix the problem. The big thing for me is that if you need help I don't think its too much to ask to piss clean. I have to piss clean to have my job, the least you can do is piss clean to not have a job.

I am not anti drug at all. In my perfect world all drugs would be made legal and regulated in a manner as to keep low grade dangerous home made chemicals off of the street. If you could legally go to a store and purchase a drug that is regulated, meets FDA standards, and isn't "cut", you wouldn't buy an inferior product from the street. Its like you never hear of an alcoholic who brews all his own vodka or buys bathtub vodka from a street brewer, he goes to a store and buys it. He knows that the booze from the store isn't tainted and won't make him go blind. I also believe that if a person could legally buy their drug of choice you would see a steep decline in criminal activity. I'm not sure how the economy would be affected by thousands of drug dealers suddenly being out of business though.:confused:

I believe that is everyones personal right to ingest whatever substance they desire as long as they can do it in a responsible manner and it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. IMO, if you want to sniff glue at the end of your work day, more power to you, its your body and your decision. I don't believe it should be anyones choice but your own.

*edit* I also believe that treatment should be made readily available and free as to help those who are poor.

[Despare]

The test aren't that reliable, are easy to beat and will cost money to administer.

So basically what will happen is that the government will spend more money to test welfare recipients for illegal drugs.

The response to this is that the welfare recipients who do take illegal will spend the government money they receive on kits to cheat the tests. Isn't there some sort of irony here.

Saying that is a cop out though, look at how many people are busted for probation violations because of a dilute result or failure. It's not THAT easy to beat and I've met some (fairly... given the circumstances I suppose) intelligent people who haven't passed a test when they should have.

[Ferox13]

Saying that is a cop out though, look at how many people are busted for probation violations because of a dilute result or failure. It's not THAT easy to beat and I've met some (fairly... given the circumstances I suppose) intelligent people who haven't passed a test when they should have.

No I just saying that it would be the reality of the situation.

I'm not sure how reliable the drug testing kits are (I neither take illegal drugs or ever drug tested) but they work for Sistinas666s pretty good.

Also for a regular user Grass/Has seems to stay in the system the longest - so they are most likely to be caught where as a heroin users would be a whole be harder. Smack stays in the system a very short time.

Also if you advocate testing for illegal drugs than you really have to advocate testing for legal drugs too like alcohol. In my opinion, alcohol abuse is more detrimental to holding down a job than some one who smokes grass every day.

[Sistinas666]

No I just saying that it would be the reality of the situation.

I'm not sure how reliable the drug testing kits are (I neither take illegal drugs or ever drug tested) but they work for Sistinas666s pretty good.

Also for a regular user Grass/Has seems to stay in the system the longest - so they are most likely to be caught where as a heroin users would be a whole be harder. Smack stays in the system a very short time.

Also if you advocate testing for illegal drugs than you really have to advocate testing for legal drugs too like alcohol. In my opinion, alcohol abuse is more detrimental to holding down a job than some one who smokes grass every day.


The only illegal drug I use is weed. You are correct, I do believe it is one of the longest to stay in your system. I go to the local health food store and buy a body detox kit for 50 bucks(I can affords this without government assistance or depriving my family of any needs). I have passed many pee tests with this. I am a daily smoker so there is no way thc wouldn't appear in MY urine but I have absolutely no idea how well this would work if a person did other kinds of drugs.

I agree with you on the weed vs alcohol debate but unfortunately alcohol is legal and weed isn't. I understand your point as well, if a junkie can't get benefits its not cool for an alcoholic to get them just because booze is legal. I completely see eye to eye with you on that point.

[Ferox13]

I agree with you on the weed vs alcohol debate but unfortunately alcohol is legal and weed isn't. I understand your point as well, if a junkie can't get benefits its not cool for an alcoholic to get them just because booze is legal. I completely see eye to eye with you on that point.

Not only that, its easier for a Heroin Addict to get Welfare with drug testing than someone who smokes grass.

I think the figure is higher for is higher for Alcohol Abuse rather than Drug abuse with those receiving Welfare (in USA anyway). So its logical to conclude that alcohol abuse is a more serious problem than any sort of illegal drug abuse. So for drug testing for marijuana really isn't addressing the real problem.

[Sistinas666]

Not only that, its easier for a Heroin Addict to get Welfare with drug testing than someone who smokes grass.

I think the figure is higher for is higher for Alcohol Abuse rather than Drug abuse with those receiving Welfare (in USA anyway). So its logical to conclude that alcohol abuse is a more serious problem than any sort of illegal drug abuse. So for drug testing for marijuana really isn't addressing the real problem.


Okay, I think we see eye to eye on this topic as I completely agree with everything you have stated. Drug testing for weed doesn't address the problem and in my opinion neither does putting people in jail for weed. It blows my mind that simply sitting in the privacy of my own home smoking a joint could land me in jail yet its perfectly fine to throw a party in my yard with a keg and a loud bunch of annoying drunks.

Shit just isn't right and I fear I will never see a change in my lifetime.

[NinetyNine]

It would be really ineffective to enact that kind of law. I can envision the needy people being used for jail-fodder to private prisons the moment the government implements your plan. If we do add that to the laws, people will be going to jail just to enrich the politicians' wallets. That definitely wouldn't be a good thing.

Secondly, they'll take more from our taxes to pay for that crap. In the end, it'd be counter-productive if lowering taxes is the goal. I don't even believe drug use should be a crime. Therefore, I'm completely against your poorly thought out plan.