Urine Test for Public Assistance?

[rehmwa 2]

[url]

Quote

>How do "we" let that woman's kids starve?

By withholding money she has come to rely on.

>Seems she is letting her kids starve.

No, God did it! Or maybe the mom's parents brought her up wrong. I'm sure there are lots of people we can find to blame. But we can choose to help or not. Most people choose to help, which is a good thing.

That being said, buying her drugs really isn't helping, which is why I like the "food/clothing/housing only" credit.

the problem was setting the expectation of the "money she's come to rely on"

"food/clothing/housing only credit"
If we have to do it, that's the only real way to do it.

Sometimes "help" only causes greater long term harm. If you broke your leg, I can "help". I can carry you from place to place. Of course, your leg won't heal. But I feel a lot better about myself and my well meaning control I've established over your life.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,998]

>Sometimes "help" only causes greater long term harm. If you broke
>your leg, I can "help". I can carry you from place to place. Of course, your
>leg won't heal. But I feel a lot better about myself and my well meaning
>control I've established over your life.

Agreed. But the opposite can be just as bad. If you see someone lying in the street with a broken leg, and tell him "if you walk to the hospital I'll see you get that looked at" - that might also result in a leg that never heals correctly either. Sometimes you have to carry them to the hospital - even if a few of them take unfair advantage of the help.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you are habitually smoking pot then you are not likely putting too many hours into researching the market, looking at potential employers and grooming yourself for such employment. Get a job and pay for your own booze and dope.

Well, is this so important to you that you'd be willing to spend more net tax dollars on public assistance to ensure that no recipients are using pot? For the 4th or 5th time, I ask, where will the cost savings come from?

I don't think you'd eliminate that many people, yet you'd have to test (and keep testing) all of them.

Testing for pot isn't all that effective. There are quite a few IT professionals in the bay area that continue to smoke regularly, despite testing policies by their employers. Rent in my apartment building exceeds 1500/mo, yet from the hallways it obvious at least a couple of apartments have people with more than casual use going on for years, haven't been evicted yet.

It's seems more cost effective to disqualify people when you become aware they have substance problems, rather than testing all to find some.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Agreed. But the opposite can be just as bad. If you see someone lying in the street with a broken leg, and tell him "if you walk to the hospital I'll see you get that looked at" - that might also result in a leg that never heals correctly either. Sometimes you have to carry them to the hospital - even if a few of them take unfair advantage of the help.

Look, if he cuts off the leg and sears the stump, he can eat that leg for 2, maybe 3 days. Thus, saving society both medical and food charitable costs.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Richards 0]

Quote

Got any proof of this?

No I do not. I also do not have proof that if you walk outside in the rain that you will get wet, nor do I have proof that if you jump off of a really tall building you will probably die.

There have been several studies pertaining to this subject. I quick google search located a couple (I only looked at the summary of each) you can look at.

http://www.ccsa.ca/CCSA/EN/Statistics/CanadianProfile1999.htm

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/technical_series_1998-01-01_1.pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1341718

Quote

Nearly everyone I know smoke pot. Most smoke daily after work. Most of my friends do not drink. Soley pot smokers.
They all work good jobs. Most of them, you would never suspect that they even smoked or would even condone it.

I will not deny that there are many who can function with frequent drug use. I have worked with some. But I suspect that your freinds know when to stop so they can be functional the next day. The problem with the chronically unemployed doper/drinker is that without an actual appointment or job to go to the next morning, they tend to stay up late, sleep till noon and put off the job hunt while blaming their unemployment woes on the government, lack of respect in most jobs, immigrants,....etc. I do know what I am talking about on this, I have known numerous public nipple suckers, including a few distant relatives and the pattern was so obvious that a one celled organism could have seen it. My argument has nothing to do with the relative harmfulness of pot versus alcohol. The fact that you can point out exceptions to the rule does not change the fact that if I work my as off to earn a dollar and the government wishes to tax that dollar to give to someone who is not working, I have the right to demand that there is some oversite. I do not work to carry loafers indefinitely.

Quote

There is no link between pot smoking and welfare.

Have you a source for this claim or is it opinion?

Quote

I would venture to say that there are more working people who smoke than there are poor.

Some might venture to say that Elvis is still alive.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Well, is this so important to you that you'd be willing to spend more net tax dollars on public assistance to ensure that no recipients are using pot? For the 4th or 5th time, I ask, where will the cost savings come from?

I haven't looked at the budget projections on this so I cannot argue your point nor confirm it. Can you please post the analysis that shows there is more cost to testing than continually paying people to do nothing?

Quote

I don't think you'd eliminate that many people, yet you'd have to test (and keep testing) all of them.

You don't neccesarily have to test them all. Utilize a random testing system, and also allow for tests where social assistance workers suspect there is drug use.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

I will not deny that there are many who can function with frequent drug use. I have worked with some. But I suspect that your freinds know when to stop so they can be functional the next day. .

I have known a few people who went to work every single day stoned, and never had issues, and got promoted. So I guess he knew when to stop - never!

With hard drugs you might have a case, but many can and do function quite well on hard drugs. Hell, Limbaugh was on the air for years while popping Oxy, and nobody seemed the wiser.

Drugs are not the issue. The issues are opportunity, education, and motivation.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[DaVinci 0]

I like the idea. Tax money that should be spent on food, shelter, clothing should not be spent on alcohol or drugs.

It would never work since people will defend the individuals rights. But I think when you suck from the government tit, you have to abide by the governments rules.

Put it another way, when you lived off your parents, you lived by their rules. Same here.

Others have said you don't have to work in a position that requires drug testing...I agree. But they do not have to accept aid either.

The real solution is to provide Gov debit cards like someone else already said on another thread.

But people will bitch about that as well. But if they are accepting handouts, they should not be able to get them and use them for "fun".

[Richards 0]

Quote

I have known a few people who went to work every single day stoned, and never had issues, and got promoted. So I guess he knew when to stop - never!

I do not doubt that. Saying there is a correlation does not mean that 100% of all people who do it will perform as predicted. There are possibly some people out there who can drive better after a few drinks, but rules aren't made on the exception.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I would venture to say that there are more working people who smoke than there are poor.

{spoof}

I snort coke so I can work longer....

...so I can make more money...

...so I can buy more coke...

{/spoof}

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

It's funny to me that some people seem to resent the poor for their "luxurious" lifestyle.

You've got to be kidding, if that's what you got from what I said.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Have I told you lately, that I like you?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Have I told you lately, that I like you?

He *does* have the 'sarcasm skillz' down pat, doesn't he?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,452]

Sorry, but it pisses me off that I'm now subject to random drug tests. Of course, I don't think that many drugs should be as demonized as they are, either.

After all -- if it's OK to go to work taking (for example) Vicodin if you have a prescription and can function, what is the impact on the workplace if you go with a friend's Vicodin and you can function?

If you sped on the way there, you broke the law, too.

I realize it's a rule, and the employer makes the rules. That's why I'm still employed there. But it does piss me off.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

Look, if he cuts off the leg and sears the stump, he can eat that leg for 2, maybe 3 days. Thus, saving society both medical and food charitable costs.

Have I told you lately that I like you?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[BIGUN 1,317]

Quote

After all -- if it's OK to go to work taking (for example) Vicodin if you have a prescription and can function, what is the impact on the workplace if you go with a friend's Vicodin and you can function?

Because a Doctor decided you can function based on the prescription for you. If one takes a Vicodin from a friend; they have decided they can function and may not.

But as you say, you choose to accept it because they are the employer. For those on public assistance, that is their employer.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I haven't looked at the budget projections on this so I cannot argue your point nor confirm it. Can you please post the analysis that shows there is more cost to testing than continually paying people to do nothing?

You don't neccesarily have to test them all. Utilize a random testing system, and also allow for tests where social assistance workers suspect there is drug use.

Well, the onus for cost benefit lies on those proposing the change. Just as you didn't require proof that people get wet in the rain, I'm fairly confident that testing millions of people is expensive, not to mention demeaning.

You're right in that random testing would drop the costs, but then also the effectiveness. Given the way EDD (unemployment) will not ever check up on people's job search efforts, I'd expect a random policy to have so few people that any stoners would not be deterred. The cost savings of less testing would be matched by the decrease in lost cost savings by catching fewer users.

I generally oppose drug testing in the workplace because if its affecting their performance, it shows. It's true that this mechanism won't work for the unemployed, or perhaps it did. So for me, the question really is about net cost. If proponents can show a likelyhood of gain, it's worth debating. If the whole of the argument is drug use is bad, go to church.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Just as you didn't require proof that people get wet in the rain, I'm fairly confident that testing millions of people is expensive, not to mention demeaning.

1. I do not doubt that is it is expensive. That was not the question. The question was how do we know it is more expensive than continually doling out money to people who will not look for work. The returns on cutting back the number of recipients minus the cost of testing might well have a positive net present value.

2. Working people have to submit to it. Are welfare recipients too important to have to submit to the same requirements as those who support them?

Quote

You're right in that random testing would drop the costs, but then also the effectiveness.

No it won't. It is just like police roadblocks for impaired drivers. Also it does not have to be purely random. Welfare workers can identify chronic recipients who they suspect of drug use and submit their names for testing.

Quote

I generally oppose drug testing in the workplace because if its affecting their performance, it shows. It's true that this mechanism won't work for the unemployed, or perhaps it did. So for me, the question really is about net cost. If proponents can show a likelyhood of gain, it's worth debating. If the whole of the argument is drug use is bad, go to church.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Sorry, but it pisses me off that I'm now subject to random drug tests. Of course, I don't think that many drugs should be as demonized as they are, either.

After all -- if it's OK to go to work taking (for example) Vicodin if you have a prescription and can function, what is the impact on the workplace if you go with a friend's Vicodin and you can function?

If you sped on the way there, you broke the law, too.

I realize it's a rule, and the employer makes the rules. That's why I'm still employed there. But it does piss me off.

Wendy W.

The practice pisses me off, too. Lots of people legally take prescription medication for conditions that are none of their employers' damned business, and may very well make them subject to workplace discrimination - Ritalin for adult ADHD, which will show up as amphetamines (which it is); heart disease or cholesterol medication; Prozac for clinical depression; Viagra for , etc.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

It depends on the job. Pilots, truckers, Surgeons ...etc are in positions where I might want to see some testing.

Fair enough. But for 95% of the other jobs that get tested for it? Fuck that.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I realize it's a rule, and the employer makes the rules. That's why I'm still employed there.

The employer makes the rules but YOU choose which employer you'll work for.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Lindsey 0]

Welfare workers can identify chronic recipients who they suspect of drug use and submit their names for testing.

...like college students. College students probably receive more federal aid than any other group.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I realize it's a rule, and the employer makes the rules. That's why I'm still employed there.

The employer makes the rules but YOU choose which employer you'll work for.

Yeah, I know, but that doesn't make it any less degrading.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It depends on the job. Pilots, truckers, Surgeons ...etc are in positions where I might want to see some testing.

Fair enough. But for 95% of the other jobs that get tested for it? Fuck that.

Agreed. It does seem needlessly intrusive to require a desk clerk or hair dresser to be tested. My dividing line would be the consequences of drug use on the job.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

The employer makes the rules but YOU choose which employer you'll work for.

Yeah, I know, but that doesn't make it any less degrading.

Well see, that's up to you. If you don't like being degraded, then go somewhere else.

If you like being degraded, stay.

Simple enough.

First Class Citizen Twice Over