Drug testing for welfare

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

>I think it is a great Idea . . .

OK. Situation:

24 year old woman college grad working for the government at her first job. She makes a huge mistake, does cocaine at a party one night, and gets popped on a test the next day - and gets fired.

Let her starve?

Nope. Let her find another job. And how the hell do you go from college grad to starvation? Oh yes, you must also assume the nice young lady never saves a dime, has no relatives to help out, no church affiliation to rely on (although most every church would welcome and help her, pink slip and all), and no ability to fend for herself. You sure don't have much faith in young, college educated moms.

It's called consequences, Bill. Without them, nobody would go to work. And who would fund your precious welfare then?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 3,009]

>Nope. Let her find another job.

Hard to do that when you're in rehab. But she probably will eventually.

>And how the hell do you go from college grad to starvation? Oh yes,
>you must also assume the nice young lady never saves a dime has
>$40,000 in college loans to pay off.

Yes, recent college grads can have serious financial problems.

>It's called consequences, Bill. Without them, nobody would go to work.

I don't need to work; I do. And it's a fair bet that most people would prefer to work than be on welfare with a drug problem.

>And who would fund your precious welfare then?

People like me - people who are willing to work and pay taxes, and don't mind if some of those taxes are used to help people who have screwed up their lives, at least until they're back on their feet.

If that bothers you, Niger has no such 'precious welfare' system, and people do indeed die in the streets.

[Southern_Man 0]

Government already pays for rehab.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Pretty sure this would decrease the cost of welfare by removing those who are drug addicts.

Is it really good social policy to take away addicts' only means of support?

Is it good social policy to fund people's drug addiction? (focusing more on the coke/crack example rather than pot)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes, recent college grads can have serious financial problems.

But this one was able to score coke? Problems might not be that serious. As the other guy says, life has consequences.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I thought Republicans were for less government intrusion in people's lives and less government spending.

Getting people off drugs would lead to less Govt spending.

Quote

What this would do is increase the cost of all welfare programs while doing very little to combat poverty.

You don't think getting people off of drugs will reduce poverty?

It will increase their reliability and that will help them find and keep work. They will quit spending money on drugs and will instead feed their family.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

>Nope. Let her find another job.

Hard to do that when you're in rehab. But she probably will eventually.

Lot's of assumptions there, Bill. Getting fired from a government job for burning a piss test doesn't force you into rehab. And if - as you say - the lady just "made a mistake", I doubt she would need rehab anyway. You really are just making this crap up. Amazing!

>And how the hell do you go from college grad to starvation? Oh yes,
>you must also assume the nice young lady never saves a dime has
>$40,000 in college loans to pay off.

Yes, recent college grads can have serious financial problems.

Yes, they can. And they can also have their payments deferred when in financial trouble.

>It's called consequences, Bill. Without them, nobody would go to work.

I don't need to work; I do. And it's a fair bet that most people would prefer to work than be on welfare with a drug problem.

First of all, not everyone on welfare is on drugs, and not everyone on drugs is on welfare. And sorry, many of the people on drugs and welfare DO want it that way. They choose the drugs - the welfare just keeps them there becuase they have no need to get work. "Hey, more time and money for dope!". Ask any doper.

>And who would fund your precious welfare then?

People like me - people who are willing to work and pay taxes, and don't mind if some of those taxes are used to help people who have screwed up their lives, at least until they're back on their feet.

If that bothers you, Niger has no such 'precious welfare' system, and people do indeed die in the streets.

I have no problem helping people OUT of a bad situation. However, our system KEEPS people in their bad situation. People who go on welfare unfortunately often become victims of the very people who claim to help them. Once the money starts flowing, the job often never seems to get hunted for. Funny how that works.

How about fishing poles instead of fish? Handing poor people fish has been tried over and over. And those poor people are still poor. How much longer do you want to run in circles instead of teaching fishing lessons, co-signing the loan on a boat, and pushing them from the damn dock?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

>I think it is a great Idea . . .

OK. Situation:

24 year old woman college grad working for the government at her first job. She makes a huge mistake, does cocaine at a party one night, and gets popped on a test the next day - and gets fired.

Let her starve?

Yes! But in all reality, you dont have to starve if you dont want to. There are plenty of homeless shelters that you can get food from. If not then you can goto pretty much any church and get food! Nice cop out though!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

And what person applying to mcdonalds says, "Hi my name is jessica and I just got fired from my government job because I snorted cocain at a party?" All she has to do is say I need work immediately and i will take the wage everyone else receives, and you get an employee with good work ethics and experience.

No.

Companies are reluctant to hire people that have histories working in higher-paying positions/fields because those people are likely to return to those fields as soon as the opportunity presents. Especially when obligations like a mortgage exist which require the person to earn more.

Given a choice between a 16 year old kid who has yet to graduate from highschool and can do well on $7.25 an hour because his parents cover his living expenses and some one with experience and a college degree that usually combine to produce a $70,000 salary I'd hire the kid.

He'll probably be there for two years while the college graduate should be gone in a few months when she gets a job which pays for her skills.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Quote

Pretty sure this would decrease the cost of welfare by removing those who are drug addicts.

How would you deal with a mother that smokes pot (grows her own so it doesn't cost anything) but is otherwise a decent mother?

Hahaha.... I'm just thinking about ALL the "decent" mothers out there that are growing their own pot.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>People like me - people who are willing to work and pay taxes, and don't mind if some of those taxes are used to help people who have screwed up their lives, at least until they're back on their feet.

"at least until they're back on their feet"

you are such a republican

...
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

[slj678 0]

Quote

Quote

And what person applying to mcdonalds says, "Hi my name is jessica and I just got fired from my government job because I snorted cocain at a party?" All she has to do is say I need work immediately and i will take the wage everyone else receives, and you get an employee with good work ethics and experience.

No.

Companies are reluctant to hire people that have histories working in higher-paying positions/fields because those people are likely to return to those fields as soon as the opportunity presents. Especially when obligations like a mortgage exist which require the person to earn more.

Given a choice between a 16 year old kid who has yet to graduate from highschool and can do well on $7.25 an hour because his parents cover his living expenses and some one with experience and a college degree that usually combine to produce a $70,000 salary I'd hire the kid.

He'll probably be there for two years while the college graduate should be gone in a few months when she gets a job which pays for her skills.

I kind of understand where you are coming from, but I still strongly disagree with it. You are telling me you would take a highschool kid who is not dependable, doesn't have the mindset of "I have to go to work today or I won't eat", and who could just as easily quit the same day you hire him because he doesn't want to be a fry cook and sweat. Not to mention the fact that somebody who is in highschool is 1000000 times more likely to steal from you than somebody who has made it through college... just sayin...

"I didn't know they gave out rings at the holocaust"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Given a choice between a 16 year old kid who has yet to graduate from highschool and can do well on $7.25 an hour because his parents cover his living expenses and some one with experience and a college degree that usually combine to produce a $70,000 salary I'd hire the kid.

He'll probably be there for two years while the college graduate should be gone in a few months when she gets a job which pays for her skills.

Based on my college time in the low wage workplace, they were certainly better off hiring me. Sure I left at the end of the summer, but by then they had fired or lost everyone else they had. The turnover at these places is astounding. Virtually no one stays at McDonald's (or Fedco or Trak Auto) very long. The good ones move up. The fuckups get fired and move on to their next short term engagements.

So yeah, I'd go with the person that will be competent for 3 months. You're only spending a couple hours training them.

[slj678 0]

Quote

Based on my college time in the low wage workplace, they were certainly better off hiring me. Sure I left at the end of the summer, but by then they had fired or lost everyone else they had. The turnover at these places is astounding. Virtually no one stays at McDonald's (or Fedco or Trak Auto) very long. The good ones move up. The fuckups get fired and move on to their next short term engagements.

So yeah, I'd go with the person that will be competent for 3 months. You're only spending a couple hours training them.

Bingo, nailed it...

"I didn't know they gave out rings at the holocaust"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

24 year old woman college grad working for the government at her first job.

Okay. She's read the employee handbook.

[Reply] She makes a huge mistake, does cocaine at a party one night,

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/21122

Saw it come up and made me wonder how much money the country would save? Any thoughts?

It's hard to say. It seems to me that it would be an expensive program to implement. And unless the testing was random, it wouldn't likely catch much other than marijuana, which is probably the least harmful of the illegal drugs. And even with random testing, there are ways around the tests. Also, I'm guessing that alcohol is by far the most abused drug, and since they only seem to be talking about testing for illegal drugs (in the article you posted), it wouldn't do anything about (what I am guessing is) the biggest drug problem among welfare recipients.

So it's hard to speculate without knowing more about what percentage of welfare recipients abuse illegal drugs, and exactly how the drugs would be tested for.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I kind of understand where you are coming from, but I still strongly disagree with it. You are telling me you would take a highschool kid who is not dependable, doesn't have the mindset of "I have to go to work today or I won't eat", and who could just as easily quit the same day you hire him because he doesn't want to be a fry cook and sweat. Not to mention the fact that somebody who is in highschool is 1000000 times more likely to steal from you than somebody who has made it through college... just sayin...

You're making some rather LARGE assumptions there, sport.

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

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Pretty sure this would decrease the cost of welfare by removing those who are drug addicts.

Is it really good social policy to take away addicts' only means of support? Would this not simply increase poverty, homelessness, and hunger and all the other negative things that go along with that? And won't that simply increase the financial pressure on private organizations like the Salvation Army? I'm not sure society will see any net gain by making life harder for drug addicts. These people need help, not more punishment.

Perhaps we should provide their drugs too so as not to burden them with actually having to take the welfare money out to buy it themselves.

Drug testing in order to receive free checks in the mail = more punishment It's not benefitial to make life harder for drug addicts....

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/21122

Saw it come up and made me wonder how much money the country would save? Any thoughts?

At the last program I worked we contracted a lab for cannabis and cocaine UDS @ $5 each. If you run a five panel UDS to include methamphetamine, opioids and PCP the cost jumped to $35. Opioids are broken down into different categories for heroin, hydrocodone, oxycodone, etc. Add in benzodiazepines for Valium, Atavan, Xanax, etc and the price keeps increasing.

Bottom line, it is not cost effective.

The liberal way of life is get on welfare, live on food stamps, get Rx drugs from your welfare psychiatrist, trade or sell Rx drugs for street drugs of choice, complain about the unfair, obscene rich right wing conservative Republicans, and vote Democratic. Life is good.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

The liberal way of life is get on welfare, live on food stamps, get Rx drugs from your welfare psychiatrist, trade or sell Rx drugs for street drugs of choice, complain about the unfair, obscene rich right wing conservative Republicans, and vote Democratic. Life is good.

That's the quote of the day that's going out on my emails today.

I'll just credit it to -Ron. Ok by you?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

>I think it is a great Idea . . .

OK. Situation:

24 year old woman college grad working for the government at her first job. She makes a huge mistake, does cocaine at a party one night, and gets popped on a test the next day - and gets fired.

Let her starve?

No. A lot of people make mistakes.

In an off the job situation (Being under the influence on duty is a different deal) getting a positive drug screen doesn't automatically get you fired if you are a truck driver.

I haven't personally been there, but the "guilty" party is usually offered assessment and treatment, and if that is completed successfully, keeps the job but is subject to a much higher rate of testing for a fairly long time.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

The liberal way of life is get on welfare, live on food stamps, get Rx drugs from your welfare psychiatrist, trade or sell Rx drugs for street drugs of choice, complain about the unfair, obscene rich right wing conservative Republicans, and vote Democratic. Life is good.

That's the quote of the day that's going out on my emails today.

I'll just credit it to -Ron. Ok by you?

I am honored! Be my guest.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Pretty sure this would decrease the cost of welfare by removing those who are drug addicts.

Is it really good social policy to take away addicts' only means of support? Would this not simply increase poverty, homelessness, and hunger and all the other negative things that go along with that? And won't that simply increase the financial pressure on private organizations like the Salvation Army? I'm not sure society will see any net gain by making life harder for drug addicts. These people need help, not more punishment.

Perhaps we should provide their drugs too so as not to burden them with actually having to take the welfare money out to buy it themselves.

Drug testing in order to receive free checks in the mail = more punishment It's not benefitial to make life harder for drug addicts....

You did not even attempt to understand or address my arguments.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps we should provide their drugs too so as not to burden them with actually having to take the welfare money out to buy it themselves.

Drug testing in order to receive free checks in the mail = more punishment It's not benefitial to make life harder for drug addicts....

You did not even attempt to understand or address my arguments.

I suspect he did, but this response was much more entertaining and closer to your point if you look past the irony blended in

extrapolation is a great way to examine a point - though it does tend to piss off the originator

you call welfare being the 'only means of support' for an addict - but the natural conflict is that it's more likely the enabler of the problem in the first place - chicken/egg thing there - so free money = drug supply = free money = drug supply

you decide where to cut that chain - which link does society have direct control of rather than indirect?

...
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

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

extrapolation is a great way to examine a point

Why do you (evidently) support burning kittens? That's horrible.