Should Welfare Recipient's Be Drug Tested?

[jointsmoker612]

I say yes, all of them. I'm curious of your opinion on this matter.

Bill Requires Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients


LANSING (WWJ/AP) - Michigan lawmakers are planning to consider a bill that would require welfare applicants and recipients to pass drug tests.

Republican-sponsored legislation being considered Wednesday by a House committee would establish a program of suspicion-based substance abuse screening and testing for Family Independence Program applicants and recipients who are at least 18-years-old.

More...
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/03/13/bill-requires-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

Can we also submit all politicians to drugs testing? Not to mention psychological testing? Perhaps an I.Q. test? Maybe a test or two to make sure they have a working knowledge of grade school-level science? Just a thought. I mean, if we're worried about getting our money's worth and all... :dunno:

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Not cost effective.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

Not cost effective.

Just because the program would cost more than it's likely to save? I think you need to look at the bigger picture. This is just yet another example of the Right wanting smaller, less intrusive, more cost effective government which they plan to do by making government larger, more intrusive, and less cost effective. "How does this work?", one might ask? Well, you see, the worse the government runs the more effectively the Republican Party can be in showing that government doesn't work. As a result, the worse they make things the more likely people are to hate the way things work in the government. As a result it will become much easier to curtail government due to how much everyone will hate it thanks to how shoddy the Right makes it. So, ultimately, larger and less efficient government will invariably work in the Republicans favor and lead to smaller government... or people will all revolt, things will descend into anarchy, and there will be no government. Let's face it, if it's true that the government that governs least governs best then anarchy must actually lead to a utopia, no?

See, it's a fiendishly clever plan that cannot fail.

 

[Mayhem]

What happens if an applicant tests positive?

 

[jointsmoker612]

What happens if an applicant tests positive?

Read the article

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

What happens if an applicant tests positive?

Their children go hungry.

 

[Mayhem]

Their children go hungry.

That's the answer I was looking for.

 

[jointsmoker612]

I recently purchased purchased $200 in food stamps for $100 from a neighbor and she said she was out of cigarettes and wanted to renew her tanning package. LOL

And she has 3 kids. At least the dumb bitch has her priorities straight

 

[Mayhem]

The group should not suffer for the poor choices of the individual.

And before you get too comfortable on your high horse, you knew the circumstances, yet you bought her food stamps anyway. Principles are always best applied to other people, right?

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

I recently purchased purchased $200 in food stamps for $100 from a neighbor and she said she was out of cigarettes and wanted to renew her tanning package. LOL

And she has 3 kids. At least the dumb bitch has her priorities straight

Well, it's a good thing the suggested system will stop this behavior (which you apparently dislike, yet are enabling). Oh wait, no it won't because cigarettes aren't an illegal substance.

 

[D-rock]

Like has been said before it cost money to drug test people, a lot of money.

Not only that, but how many times would one need to be drug tested to have it be effective even if hypothetically the cost weren't that bad? If it's just done once at the beginning then it's close to worthless, especially if people know the test is coming and can get clean for it, and if it's done multiple times it cost even more.

There is also the problem if it's a continuous screening process of how do you get people to make it to each drug screening. Considering they are on welfare they are probably very poor. That means a lot of them probably don't have cars or easy modes of transportation. A lot of them probably live in sparely populated areas. These aren't former prisoners on parole that might need to get it done and the onus of that burden should be on them because of their own fault. A lot of people on welfare are there because life has given them a bad hand. That means to be fair the state would need to pay for transportation for them and that would also cost a crapton of money.

What drugs should and should not disqualify one for benefits? In my opinion denying somebody that's a heroine addict or a crack head is one thing, but I don't really give a damn if somebody on welfare smokes pot as long as the person on welfare also isn't the one paying for it.

What the hell does "suspicion based" even mean? If they have suspicion enough to think somebody is doing drugs they can go through the courts, and after they are found guilty in a court of law then they can start taking benefits away. If they don't have that much evidence on somebody they don't need to go on fishing expeditions. It sounds like something that can end up as an excuse to dragnet a bunch of people they hope to get lucky with.

It and other proposals like this are one of those things that seems like a good idea for the first three seconds somebody brings it up until one actually thinks about it, and then it shows how foolish it will be. That is if it's done to actually prevent abuse of the system and not just as some thin guise for denying people welfare to save money.

 

[jointsmoker612]

The group should not suffer for the poor choices of the individual.

And before you get too comfortable on your high horse, you knew the circumstances, yet you bought her food stamps anyway. Principles are always best applied to other people, right?

Exactly!!! Had it not been me that purchased them it would have been someone else. I'm all for getting food at half price. Bring it

 

[jointsmoker612]

Like has been said before it cost money to drug test people, a lot of money.

Not only that, but how many times would one need to be drug tested to have it be effective even if hypothetically the cost weren't that bad? If it's just done once at the beginning then it's close to worthless, especially if people know the test is coming and can get clean for it, and if it's done multiple times it cost even more.

There is also the problem if it's a continuous screening process of how do you get people to make it to each drug screening. Considering they are on welfare they are probably very poor. That means a lot of them probably don't have cars or easy modes of transportation. A lot of them probably live in sparely populated areas. These aren't former prisoners on parole that might need to get it done and the onus of that burden should be on them because of their own fault. A lot of people on welfare are there because life has given them a bad hand. That means to be fair the state would need to pay for transportation for them and that would also cost a crapton of money.

What drugs should and should not disqualify one for benefits? In my opinion denying somebody that's a heroine addict or a crack head is one thing, but I don't really give a damn if somebody on welfare smokes pot as long as the person on welfare also isn't the one paying for it.

It's one of those things that seems like a good idea for the first three seconds somebody brings it up until one actually thinks about it, and then it shows how foolish it will be. That is if it's done to actually prevent abuse of the system and not just as some thin guise for denying people welfare to save money.

They do, at least in Michigan. Bus token are given out free per request. I think they instituted that when people where using lack of transportation as an excuse NOT to attend the "Work First" classes. Now they have no excuse-LOL

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Their children go hungry.

That is unacceptable.

 

[jointsmoker612]

That is unacceptable.

Blame the parent

 

[jointsmoker612]

I always found it funny how these people can't keep their mandatory DHS appointments but they have no problem finding a ride come food fucking stamp day. LMAO

 

[AerynWalker]

Can we also submit all politicians to drugs testing? Not to mention psychological testing? Perhaps an I.Q. test? Maybe a test or two to make sure they have a working knowledge of grade school-level science? Just a thought. I mean, if we're worried about getting our money's worth and all... :dunno:

This. Also law enforcement and those in the justice system.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Ingredients: Coloring agents (blue 1, blue 2, yellow 5, and yellow 6)
Found In: Cake, candy, macaroni and cheese, medicines, sport drinks, soda, pet food, and cheese

Ingredient: Olestra (aka Olean)
Found In: Fat-free potato chips

Ingredient: Brominated vegetable oil (aka BVO)
Found In: Sports drinks and citrus-flavored sodas

Ingredient: Potassium bromate (aka brominated flour)
Found In: Rolls, wraps, flatbread, bread crumbs, and bagel chips

Ingredient: Azodicarbonamide
Found In: Breads, frozen dinners, boxed pasta mixes, and packaged baked goods

Ingredients: BHA and BHT
Found In: Cereal, nut mixes, gum, butter, meat, dehydrated potatoes, and beer

Ingredients: Synthetic hormones (rBGH and rBST)
Found In: Milk and dairy products

Ingredient: Arsenic
Found In: Poultry

The above ingredients are forbidden all over the world but in the US and as you can see they cover pretty much all that the Americans eat. Oh if you didn't know it, those ingredients are highly toxic, can cause cancer, mental illness, depression, shut down your liver, kill your prostate, cause growth problems, give you asthma just to name a few.
You find these ingredients particularly in low cost, pre-processed food which is probably the one most consumed by people applying for welfare. Too bad that politicians don't give a shit about Americans being poisoned and drugged several times a day legally by corporations with the FDA blessing. That's why i find the above news pretty anachronistic and demagogic; but what i like the least of course is the intrusive aspect of the law proposition and its dangerous possibility to create a precedent: today it's for drugs, tomorrow it's for alcohol because we are used to it for drugs already, the it will be for fizzy pops, then for sex or certain diseases and so on. I don't know about you, but i don't like to be filed and to be guilty before being even judged.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Yes.