Drug testing

witchhunt · Post by **witchhunt** » Monday Feb 06, 2012

To all the people who support drug testing for welfare recipients, I agree, but only to a point. Here's a good explanation why.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-f ... or-pee-ple

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Monday Feb 06, 2012

I saw that. Absolutely brilliant. Fair is fair. I don't see how anyone could argue with it.
Probably should be in the politics thread, though. It's going to inflame the soft, white underbelly on Rockpage.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Monday Feb 06, 2012

Also saw that as well - goes to show how rationality often has nothing to do with knee-jerk policy.

RamRod 1 · Post by **RamRod 1** » Monday Feb 06, 2012

They're drug testing me too. Hell, I might as well go on welfare.

tornandfrayed · Post by **tornandfrayed** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

Well I say, If they are going to drug test me then I am going to test drugs!

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

Drug test anyone who is getting money from the tax payers. Whether it be welfare recipients, or politicians.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

How about a free people living in a free country?

jetcitywoman · Post by **jetcitywoman** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

why is it such a good idea to make desperate people even more desperate? how will making them homeless and starving them solve the problem? Won't this just make a bad problem worse? Where is the reasonable argument for drug testing welfare recipients? If you just throw them into the streets they will resort to robbing you.

Merge · Post by **Merge** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

So tax dollars from working people should be used to support a drug habit??

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

I am against tax dollars.

jetcitywoman · Post by **jetcitywoman** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

Merge wrote:So tax dollars from working people should be used to support a drug habit??

No one is for supporting drug habits with tax dollars per se. But helping feed people and housing them who HAPPEN to also have a drug habit. A drug habit that may have been started with the use of known addicting prescription meds prescribed by a licensed physician.

I ask again how will throwing them into the street and starving them help solve the problem of drug addiction and crime associated with it? I know it makes you feel good to kick the "bastards" out but that's not a real solution to drug addicition nor the problem of unemployment and the plight of the homeless. Keep in mind much welfare goes to FAMLIES with KIDS. Should the children suffer?

Merge · Post by **Merge** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

Did I say anything about kicking the "bastards" out?? If the money is going to FAMILIES with KIDS, the parents of these kids will have no problem taking a drug test to get the money to help these KIDS. I had to take a drug test to get hired with the company I work for, they should have to do the same to get the tax dollars that are taken from working people.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

No one is saying anything about kicking the people out on the street. We are saying that they should be drug tested. With many welfare recipients using it as a career, they should be treated like it is a career. I have to take a drug test for my job. It is no different than them having to take a drug test.

This is the way I would do it: I would give them one chance to clean up after failing the test. So other wards, they will get benefits, but they will be required to go to rehab and get clean. If they fail to do so and fail a second mandatory drug test, they are kicked off.

Common sense tells you that if they pass the test they will continue to get the benefits. If they fail, they stop getting benefits. As long as a have a form from their doctor with the list of medications they are taking, they are in the clear; as long as it is prescribed by said doctor.

Anyone taking money from the tax payers should be drug tested. The majority of the people who are against it, probably wouldn't pass it.

witchhunt · Post by **witchhunt** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

I think applicants should get at least one strike. What if someone isn't spending money on drugs but gets high with a little help from his friends? What if somebody smoked that last joint 3 weeks ago and now has to get tested? So if someone tests positive, they should be given 45 days and then tested again. On the other hand, that same person can legally spend his whole check on booze.

Merge · Post by **Merge** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

That sounds reasonable, witchhunt.

jetcitywoman · Post by **jetcitywoman** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

f.sciarrillo wrote:No one is saying anything about kicking the people out out on the street. We are saying that they should be drug tested. With many welfare recipients using it as a career, they should be treated like it is a career. I have to take a drug test for my job. It is no different than them having to take a drug test.

Common sense tells you that if they pass the test they will continue to get the benefits. If they fail, they stop getting benefits. As long as a have a form from their doctor with the list of medications they are taking, they are in the clear; as long as it is prescribed by said doctor.

Anyone taking money from the tax payers should be drug tested. The majority of the people who are against it, probably wouldn't pass it.

Agreed, much fraud exists, among addicts and non-addicts alike, and that should be stopped. Fraud and drug addiction are 2 different things. Much fraud is perpetrated by non-addicts too.

You say "If they fail they stop getting the benefits". Now what? You've taken away their housing subsidy and food stamps. Where will they live and how will the kids eat? This is not "throwing the bastards" out?? What do you call it??

jetcitywoman · Post by **jetcitywoman** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

Merge wrote:Did I say anything about kicking the "bastards" out?? If the money is going to FAMILIES with KIDS, the parents of these kids will have no problem taking a drug test to get the money to help these KIDS. I had to take a drug test to get hired with the company I work for, they should have to do the same to get the tax dollars that are taken from working people.

How about alcohol testing too? Is alcohol not a drug, and how many alcoholics avail themselves of social services?

Also, should tax dollars be spent rehabbing drug and alcolhol addiction?

Keep in mind ADDICTION is a very real thing! Don't believe it..quit smoking! what's the problem???

Merge · Post by **Merge** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

If they lose their food stamps and welfare due to a failed drug test, they have no one to blame but themselves. If they can't take care of their kids, because they can't put the crack pipe down, the children should be placed in foster care.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

witchhunt wrote:I think applicants should get at least one strike. What if someone isn't spending money on drugs but gets high with a little help from his friends? What if somebody smoked that last joint 3 weeks ago and now has to get tested? So if someone tests positive, they should be given 45 days and then tested again. On the other hand, that same person can legally spend his whole check on booze.

The thing with the waiting 45 days to get another drug test is that they know when they are getting tested. You don't want them to know when they are getting tested. It can add to them fixing the test.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

jetcitywoman wrote:
f.sciarrillo wrote:No one is saying anything about kicking the people out out on the street. We are saying that they should be drug tested. With many welfare recipients using it as a career, they should be treated like it is a career. I have to take a drug test for my job. It is no different than them having to take a drug test.

Common sense tells you that if they pass the test they will continue to get the benefits. If they fail, they stop getting benefits. As long as a have a form from their doctor with the list of medications they are taking, they are in the clear; as long as it is prescribed by said doctor.

Anyone taking money from the tax payers should be drug tested. The majority of the people who are against it, probably wouldn't pass it.
Agreed, much fraud exists, among addicts and non-addicts alike, and that should be stopped. Fraud and drug addiction are 2 different things. Much fraud is perpetrated by non-addicts too.

You say "If they fail they stop getting the benefits". Now what? You've taken away their housing subsidy and food stamps. Where will they live and how will the kids eat? This is not "throwing the bastards" out?? What do you call it??

You must have replied as I was editing my post to add what I would do. read below.

This is the way I would do it: I would give them one chance to clean up after failing the test. So other wards, they will get benefits, but they will be required to go to rehab and get clean. If they fail to do so and fail a second mandatory drug test, they are kicked off.

witchhunt · Post by **witchhunt** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

f.sciarrillo wrote:
witchhunt wrote:I think applicants should get at least one strike. What if someone isn't spending money on drugs but gets high with a little help from his friends? What if somebody smoked that last joint 3 weeks ago and now has to get tested? So if someone tests positive, they should be given 45 days and then tested again. On the other hand, that same person can legally spend his whole check on booze.
The thing with the waiting 45 days to get another drug test is that they know when they are getting tested. You don't want them to know when they are getting tested. It can add to them fixing the test.

What's the difference? With this law, they know they are gonna get tested when they apply.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

witchhunt wrote:
f.sciarrillo wrote:
witchhunt wrote:I think applicants should get at least one strike. What if someone isn't spending money on drugs but gets high with a little help from his friends? What if somebody smoked that last joint 3 weeks ago and now has to get tested? So if someone tests positive, they should be given 45 days and then tested again. On the other hand, that same person can legally spend his whole check on booze.
The thing with the waiting 45 days to get another drug test is that they know when they are getting tested. You don't want them to know when they are getting tested. It can add to them fixing the test.
What's the difference? With this law, they know they are gonna get tested when they apply.

It is the fact that they know when the test is going to be. And they can get clean just for the test. It should be a undetermined time and date. That way they have no idea when they are getting tested again. Also, it should be something other than piss test. It should be hair follicle.

Merge · Post by **Merge** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

If this type of testing is going to be done, it should be random testing.

jetcitywoman · Post by **jetcitywoman** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

Merge wrote:If they lose their food stamps and welfare due to a failed drug test, they have no one to blame but themselves. If they can't take care of their kids, because they can't put the crack pipe down, the children should be placed in foster care.

wow thats a hardline (heartless?) approach. Break up families and starve out their addiction! that'll work!

You're not mad at the addicts you're mad at the fraud and possibly at welfare in general as a humane concept to help in need to house and feed themselves.

Merge · Post by **Merge** » Tuesday Feb 07, 2012

I'm all for helping people that help themselves. Welfare was never meant to be a career opportunity. It might be heartless, but a person can't keep sucking off the system like a parasite in the name of "compassion". And if taking someone's child away because they can't/won't take care of them, so be it. The child shouldn't suffer because Dad won't get clean.

And I'm not mad at anything.