How do you feel about this, urine or your out?

Yes, conducting urine tests for hundreds of thousands of people would save money.

@ivan – not sure if that was sarcasm but if it was, I think the urine test cost can be deducted from the first check they receive or taken from the funds set aside from those checks. – Maybe i’m a jerk though…

@Ivan, but say 1 out of… I dunno, 10 welfare recipients does recreational drugs. We could even charge them say, $20 to take the test (see, fee for getting a license, etc.). I’m not super familiar with medical practice, but that means we spend an estimated $200 – $1000 per 10 people who apply, but keep that one drugger from getting $10,000+ a year in welfare? That’s -$9000 a year from what we pay into welfare.

Correct me if I’m off, I’m open to it.

Urine tests basically test for weed. Most other drugs do not stay in your system long enough to test for. I don’t believe in the urine test because it is biased towards pot smokers, and usually misses detecting the crack heads or the nose candy addicts. Not to mention it does not even consider prescription medications as drugs and the illegal use of legal drugs is actually our biggest drug problem right now.

Furthermore, yeah it seems to be a great money saver to have tons of people tested monthly before they get their measly $304. Most people on welfare actually do work, many of them are single mothers.

How about we drug test all of the rich before we allow them to take the “welfare” that the government hands them in the form of tax breaks. Always trying to urine on the little guy. And making people that don’t do drugs pay for a test, when they have already sunk as low to have to depend on the government for survival.

As I understand it, at least where I live, if a recipient of funds for housing (or anyone living in their household) is found to be using drugs or possessing drug paraphernalia, they lose their funding and their housing. In addition, many welfare recipients actually do work, typically at jobs where random urine tests are a fact of life.

Isn’t that somewhat of an equivalent to having to pass a urine test?

Yes, forcing poor people to pay money in order to get money is a great idea. Also, I’d love to see the data that suggests 10% of all welfare recipients do drugs.

I think medical places should offer the test for free actually since they pay taxes out of their checks for it as well. Maybe it’s a horrible Idea, i’m not particularly familar with this type of stuff…but I thought it was an interesting idea.

I’m sorry but people with addiction and such need help too. Yes, society’s help. People in need of welfare are often poor, more likely to have addictions and/or mental health issues. It is not a coincidence that these things go together.

And what if they were caught? Not only are they poor, but they have drug problems. These are the people we want to completely abandon?

@Ivan Didn’t you know that if you don’t give drug addicts welfare then they won’t have money to buy drugs and will cure themselves? It’s not like they would turn to crime to pay for the drugs now is it? lol

I’d say if they are caught the money is spent putting them into drug rehabilitation, they get clean and walk out with $1000 to get some clothes and get a job interview…Just a suggestion though. I’m all for helping people and I understand hard times really I do. I’m not trying to say screw everyone who doesn’t make X amount of dollars they don’t matter. Simply opening up a topic for discussion and totally prepared for some disagreement.

I wasn’t saying this was a good idea, simply that this email is correct; if people proven to be on recreational drugs were not allowed to receive welfare, it would save money.

And anyway, @johnny0313x, it’s not the government who’s drug testing you, it’s a private entity. So the argument that because the private entity pays you and drug tests you doesn’t really correlate to the government taking your money to fund welfare, right?

According to this NIH study, the incidence of drug use among welfare recipients, 1.3 – 3.6% (depending on which welfare program), is in line with that of the general population. A percentage that low hardly seems to justify universal testing.

@monsoon – wouldn’t the government be the one mandating the drug testing for you to receive welfare? I don’t know much about the welfare system, but I was under the impression the government regulates it and different division of offices manage how it is distributed.

How about random drug test for everyone. Then apply such a harsh punishment that it scares the hell out of the rest.

@johnny0313x, yes, I mean it’s not the government who’s drug testing you, at your job, that’s your employer’s choice.

Then every person needs a urine test to drive the paved roads they’re driving on, or be able to call the police in case of an emergency. People who smoke pot occasionally shouldn’t be able to use any assistance, right? Then fine, but everyone’s taxes go to many things.

@monsoon – that is true, however I think that given welfare recipients are not required any kind of drug testing then non-welfare civilians should not have to be drug tested either (though I think that is a terrible idea)

Also what about someone who smoked for 40 years and now has lung cancer or smoked crack and can’t function normally at a job but they are receiving disability. While those people truly need the help, do they deserve it? I realize eliminating drugs is impossible but would setting up some kind of fund to reduce the amount of drugs like crack and heroine to prevent users from harming themselves be a better way to spend money?

Frankly I am not opposed to pot, I don’t think someone is a bad person for it or doesn’t deserve a fair chance at life. I don’t think someone who is sitting home all day eating name brand foods and watching HD TV while smoking pot should be collecting though. Perhaps only those who are not employed could be subject to the drug testing?

@johnny0313x, But this is what I’m saying, you think that since welfare recipients do not receive drug tests, “non-welfare civilians should not have to be drug tested either,” and they don’t. My job, and most people’s jobs, don’t require drug tests, because it’s not required by the government. That’s just your employer’s choice.

@johnny0313x You think eating name brand food is a luxury??

I think the better solution would be stop requiring urine tests for those who work.

Not a luxury exactly but I know if I am trying to cut back on money one week, I will buy store brands or atleast try and buy the cheaper brand. So in a sense yes it is a luxury. I think even store brands are a luxury to be honest, we could have to grow our own food or kill to eat.

I don’t know. As per the food as luxury thing, if your logic is that the most expensive of a certain food is a luxury, it follows that buying organic and cage free is a luxury, which I would say it’s not.

@Harp wins.

/thread

No one should ever be required to take a urine test, nor discriminated against for refusing to do so. It’s degrading and insulting and impudent. Such employers should be peed upon, IMO. If you can’t tell someone is incapable of doing their job without analyzing their pee pee, then you aren’t paying enough attention to how capable they are of doing their job due to all the other things that contribute to job ability.

@monsoon, well are you saying that it’s not a luxury because we should be entitled to organic foods or name brand foods at an affordable price? I’d agree, but to be honest grocery prices are rising and rising while jobs and the economy is falling and falling. I’d say at this current economic time, many things are luxuries that were not before.

@johnny0313x, fair point. I’m saying that in your image of a pot smoker eating name brand foods and watching HD TV, what if it was a pot smoker who was struggling financially, has no credit so can’t get an apartment, works minimum wage, possibly has issues with depression, net income of $100 or $200 after bills, buys the cheapest foods to save money, takes public transportation, etc. etc. That’s a different person. What you have issue with at that point is not smoking pot, it’s being on welfare without proper need.

@Johnny0313x-” Also what about someone who smoked for 40 years and now has lung cancer or smoked crack and can’t function normally at a job but they are receiving disability. While those people truly need the help, do they deserve it?” What? Are you serious? There would be no way to verify beyond a doubt how someone got lung cancer, yet you would be willing to assume it was from smoking and not allow them health benefits? When you start drug testing welfare recipiants, who do you think is going to pay for these tests? Medical places as you stated above. Who is going to pay the “Medical Places”? If you take away welfare checks from people with children, what are the children going to eat? Who is going to take care of them? Again, it will be the government who will then tax everyone else.

@monsoon – What is he doing buying pot if he only has $100— $200 after all his bills? I know there are weeks were I am left with only $100.00 or less sometimes, I like to go out drinking from time to time….those weeks I don’t because I know I can’t and shouldn’t. I don’t mean to attack or argue with you, probably seems as though I am. Hopefully your not offended.

@chyna – I don’t think those people should be left in the dark, perhaps I was being a bit harsh, I wouldn’t want to see anyone suffer, honestly it was more of a theory then my own personal beliefs. Perhaps morality comes into play and I suppose it is a bit off topic all together. I think I was asking does someone who self inflicted illness knowing the outcome deserve help afterwords? Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want them to get help. I think with medical science today we could determine that a cigarette was or was not a contributing factor to lung cancer. As well as negative effects from any other drugs. How can a doctor tell someone they NEED to quit smoking because if they continue they will develop lung cancer or heart disease by X age. Maybe that is an extreme example, but I am just saying I think determining what caused lung cancer may not be exact but someone who has tar covered lungs with holes in them, I think it’s safe to say what caused the cancer.

@johnny0313x, not at all (offended). Who are you to judge what he or she does with his or her extra money? Is your problem with the person’s using drugs, or with their use of their own money?

@monsoon – if it is money they worked for and earned, I don’t care what they do with it. I don’t care if they use it to hire a hooker and snort lines off her thighs. However if it’s money they are being issued because they are having a hard time, then I have a problem with it. Like if someone goes to the grocery store and pays for $300.00 worth of food with their access card and takes $10.00 in cash off to go by a dime bag, while I’m sitting there scanning, bagging, and bringing the food out to their car only to see $10.00 taken out of my pay in taxes..kinda makes we wonder who really bought that dime bag…yes I have a problem then. (that is not really my job just an example). You don’t think that is wrong?

I guess I don’t, no. I don’t think any one, including me, could go a month without spending $20 or $40 on stuff they don’t need to survive. I think that you’re just targeting drugs as something unneeded, but there are lots of things that people who are on welfare may buy but don’t need, and, I’m sorry, I can’t blame them. Enter: going to a movie, a CD, a book, all those cost about as much as a “dime bag”, if my memory is correct from high school. : ) But that’s the difference between existing and living: about $50 a month.

@monsoon okay I think you made a valid point but then does that mean a dimebag is thrown into the entertainment category? I don’t think someone should be confined to bread and water and a cardboard box if they are not a hard working person. I’m just saying prioritize, take that $10.00 and use towards savings for a degree for schooling or maybe something to give back for receiving help. Use it for something that will get you in a better position, right? I know those are all logical things to do and being human, we tend to go for the thrills and nobody is perfect but I just think my mind would be more focused on getting out of the rut im in then hangin with my hooka…

Welfare recipients can be required to take urine tests upon the recommendation of their worker. (at least in my state) also, since the welfare reform act of 1996/97, cash recipients are required to either work, engage in a job training program or be going to school. At any one f those options, they are often times asked/required to drug test.
Also, welfare caps out after a period of sixty months at which time the recipient can never again recieve cash aid.
It never ceases to amaze me how the welfare myths continue to be believed.

why not test for anything that isnt necessary for survival? how is it any different for them to spend 20 dollars taking a date to the movies than if they spent that same amount of money on drugs? welfare recipients should either have to answer to no one, or have their every purchase audited. its inconsistent to regulate some recreation but not others.

My employer requires not only a drug test but also a background check (going back twenty years) and a credit check. I was cool with that because in my line of work you can’t afford to be stoned or drunk or be a felon and be expected to do your job correctly. You want to smoke pot, go for it, but don’t apply to a security job, because you won’t get hired.

@evelyns_pet_zebra it’s funny because I’m filling out a background check form as we speak for my new job…but they only want to know where I’ve lived and all my jobs

@evelyns_pet_zebra A credit check? I don’t understand that, do you mind explaining why that’s required?

@benjaminlevi, that’s exactly what I was saying.

@casheroo maybe that is required for minimum wage low profile jobs now….....so they are sure to have ‘coffee’ money for the gate supervisor.

I feel that this is an awful idea and I would never support such things.

Beyond the fact that it’s an infringement of personal privacy and rights (even poor people have rights, you know), the email’s author is incorrect about their fundamental assumption. Just because their job treats their employees like criminals doesn’t mean the rest of the world should act the same!

I thought about drug testing back when I was getting ready to go into the career world, and I decided that I would never work for a company who felt they had the right to infringe on my privacy and what I do on my own time (because of course, that’s what drug testing finds, it doesn’t find if you do it on their time or yours). I would never want to work for a company that presumed they knew what was right or wrong for me and punished me for doing something that does not affect my job at all. Luckily the company I am with now are very smart and wise and don’t care about such things like whether you had a joint last weekend, they only care about you getting your work done, and as long as you do that you could come to work in a pink panda suit or work on the moon for all they care.

The mentality that “because I pay your welfare means I get to tell you how to live your life” is a completely wrong mentality and not one that adheres to the concept of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

Sometimes we must give money to uphold society as a whole even though we don’t agree with how it is spent. This is the cost of living in the modern day society. You’re free to move to a third world country if you don’t agree with today’s society and its costs :)

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that if you cut off the person who gets government support for themselves and their children because they tested positive for drug use, the following things happen:

They and their family become homeless, ending up in homeless shelters or begging in the streets. The children never get much of an education because they have no permanent address. All of them turn to crime at some point, and get caught, and end up imprisoned at $60 thousand per year cost to the taxpayers.

Or they don’t turn to crime, but they get sick and end up in hospitals or psychiatric institutions, again, at the cost of between $10,000 to $100,000 per year to the taxpayer.

Would you still kick them off welfare for a positive drug test? Just curious. After all, these are only hypothetical scenarios, right?

@daloon That’s probably exactly what would happen to many families. There are strict eligibility regulations for food stamps and cash assistance, but I know in my state (PA) children no matter what are given health insurance…so, let’s say the father is a criminal. He can’t get medical assistance (unless in prison, of course) but his child would be covered no matter what. They never fault the children for the parents mistakes, thank god.

@casheroo So do you still kick them off welfare for a positive drug test?

@daloon I get really confused when people use the term welfare, since it’s not really telling me anything. Food stamps(actually not even called that anymore, it’s Supplemental Nutrition) and cash assistance.
But no, I personally don’t believe people should be drug tested at all. I’m also perfectly okay with people “cheating the system” in any way they can, because the system is flawed and it doesn’t help the people who need it. So if lying helps, then go for it. I’m extremely liberal when it comes to this.

I forget the name of the program that has succeeded AFDC, but that’s the one I refer to euphemistically as welfare. I think “welfare” is a euphemism for the principle of anti-poverty programs that look like government handouts to people who don’t think too much. Or perhaps only think about themselves and not the consequences of their behavior in the world. Republicans, I suppose.

No, that’s not fair. Republicans believe that every person can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and that helping them only makes them dependent on the help. They are tough love people. That’s the way they think the world is, and that’s how they interpret all the evidence that suggests the world is not that way. They think things through, but perhaps not as far as Democrats do, and perhaps not with an accurate understanding of human nature.

The thing is, if the welfare recipient’s worker sees evidence or suspects drug use, the worker can request a drug test. If the test is positive, the recipient will be referred to a rehab program.
The ‘welfare’ , (cash aid) is really meant to sustain the household for the children. If an adult does not have any legal dependents, they are not eligible for cash aid, food stamps, or medical care.
And, if an adult with legal dependents is receiving aid, they are required to work at a job, be engaged in a job training program, or be going to school. If they fail to do that, which could happen if they were heavy drug users, they get kicked off aid.
Some people have the misconception that all welfare recipients just sit around partying all the time and pick up a monthly check. While there are some that scam the system (about 9 to 10% nationally) for the most part, your tax dollars are not being abused.
I might add…. Those welfare recipients pay taxes too.
Now, if you really want to see wasted tax dollars, take a look at corporate welfare…..