Drug Screening Required for Welfare

[tos]

So if a child's parent is on drugs, the solution is to not give them assistance? Why would the children's suffer more because their parents are on drugs?

2b. The solution to a drug problem is simply to cut off their funding? If they're addicts, that's not really going to matter. The responsible thing would be to put them in drug treatment programs and get them off drugs in order to help them be more responsible parents. "Teach a man to fish..." and all that.

One of my initial responses was to question how much more will be spent on foster care as a result of more parents losing their kids now. I'm all for protecting children and having them in stable homes, but that's not what this is about -- it's supposedly about saving taxpayer dollars, and it won't.

 

[WakeandBake]

Depends on your perspective - from the taxpayers' perspective it is a no brainer. The drug testing is substantially cheaper than the welfare benefits. The fact that they will only catch some of the druggies instead of all of them is no reason not to do it.

Personally, I am opposed to both, however.

so.....when the druggies lose their check then what happens to them and their kids? They magically become "free" to the rest of society? explain that....

 

[Wrangor]

Good idea in my opinion, but implementation without damaging the children of druggies is going to be difficult. Not really sure how you solve that issue. I have no problem with the idea that positive drug test = no government support, but implementation is close to impossible.

One thing I would like to see done is that the standard for welfare would be a requirement for a GED or a high school diploma. Obviously you could appeal the process, but we need at some point to make some dents in the systemic problems of welfare. Kids right now grow up with the parents getting their monthly check, and so they do the same. If school gets tough they drop out, live off their parents until they are old enough, and then start collecting their government check. It happens all the time (if you don't believe it happens, come to Mississippi and I will show you). There is no simple answer to this problem, and it has been caused by a lot of factors that largely aren't the impoverished people's fault, however we are providing motivation for them to stay on welfare. It is easy, they know they can live off it, they feel safe with their guaranteed income.

If you implemented an educational requirement on receiving standard assistance, the teachers would have more power in schools to demand excellence. Suddenly being kicked out of school creates GRAVE consequences. One could always go back, get their GED and then receive welfare, but that is not always the easiest thing to do. We need to get to a point where we are encouraging self improvement, advancement, instead of giving motivation to maintain the status quo.

This drug-screening idea isn't a bad idea, it is just hard to implement. I think an educational requirement would be much easier to implement because you could simply start it with people being born in 2015. Set a start date, so that generation would know as they grew up that welfare would not be offered if they didn't graduate. Take away the fallback, and people get a lot more motivated to perform, to learn, to advance. There is absolutely no reason that given the proper motivation a child can't graduate from high school or obtain a GED.

Anyway - just my two cents. I rabbit trailed a bit, but in general...drug testing not a bad idea, not sure how it works in a real day implementation.

 

[wfumike02]

It's actually a great idea, but not for the reasons people are mentioning here and not in Florida's implementation.

We already require people on welfare to receive job training when appropriate. If someone is an addict to the point that they can't hold down a job, then knowing they are an addict is crucial to fixing the problem. If the testing is accompanied by treatment rather than punitive action (except for those who refuse to seek help), it would likely save money in the long run especially if it enables the state to catch the problem and treat it before the criminal justice system has to.

As the argument that cutting off benefits for the addict hurts their children, unfortunately for most addicts the drugs come before the children anyway so I'm not sure this argument has much practicality.

 

[RJKarl]

If they are off wlefare they lose food stamps also and food stamps can only be used for food products. This directly impacts children.

But it feels good.

 

[PhDeac]

As expected, no legit responses to my concerns. Welfare is one of the cheapest ways to deal with folks at the bottom of our system. Any other legit alternative costs more which is why welfare persists. Those trying to do welfare even cheaper don't realize the consequences.

 

[wfumike02]

drug screening welfare recipients is not going to prevent anyone from going bankrupt. It is going to transfer gov money to a drug screening company, and that's about it. It is going to make welfare recipients turn to alcohol and whatever other means they can to relieve stress, like all humans do. This is nothing more than appeasement of the frightened wing of our society - the fortunate ones who live in a lily-white world where everything not like them is terrifying. This is class warfare. Welfare is not making us go broke.

1. Cocaine and heroin addicts don't just wake up one day and decide to switch to alcohol.

2. It's not class warfare. It's specifically targeted. Your argument is an insult to millions of low income people who aren't involved in drugs and crime.

 

[wfumike02]

If they are off wlefare they lose food stamps also and food stamps can only be used for food products. This directly impacts children.

But it feels good.

The article Ph quoted referred to withholding cash benefits, but feel free to keep making things up.

 

[wfumike02]

Good idea in my opinion, but implementation without damaging the children of druggies is going to be difficult. Not really sure how you solve that issue. I have no problem with the idea that positive drug test = no government support, but implementation is close to impossible.

One thing I would like to see done is that the standard for welfare would be a requirement for a GED or a high school diploma. Obviously you could appeal the process, but we need at some point to make some dents in the systemic problems of welfare. Kids right now grow up with the parents getting their monthly check, and so they do the same. If school gets tough they drop out, live off their parents until they are old enough, and then start collecting their government check. It happens all the time (if you don't believe it happens, come to Mississippi and I will show you). There is no simple answer to this problem, and it has been caused by a lot of factors that largely aren't the impoverished people's fault, however we are providing motivation for them to stay on welfare. It is easy, they know they can live off it, they feel safe with their guaranteed income.

If you implemented an educational requirement on receiving standard assistance, the teachers would have more power in schools to demand excellence. Suddenly being kicked out of school creates GRAVE consequences. One could always go back, get their GED and then receive welfare, but that is not always the easiest thing to do. We need to get to a point where we are encouraging self improvement, advancement, instead of giving motivation to maintain the status quo.

This drug-screening idea isn't a bad idea, it is just hard to implement. I think an educational requirement would be much easier to implement because you could simply start it with people being born in 2015. Set a start date, so that generation would know as they grew up that welfare would not be offered if they didn't graduate. Take away the fallback, and people get a lot more motivated to perform, to learn, to advance. There is absolutely no reason that given the proper motivation a child can't graduate from high school or obtain a GED.

Anyway - just my two cents. I rabbit trailed a bit, but in general...drug testing not a bad idea, not sure how it works in a real day implementation.

This is a great idea in theory but you'd have a lot of people with mental illnesses and learning disabilities that would be unfairly penalized. But yeah, welfare recipients should have to take education and/or job training to reduce the likelihood that they will need to rely on the system in the future. Drug treatment where appropriate should probably be in there too.

 

[RJKarl]

The article Ph quoted referred to withholding cash benefits, but feel free to keep making things up.

As has been known for YEARS, I see nothing PH posts. So I know nothing about the article he posted.

But don't let common knowledge get in the way of your BS.

 

[jhmd2000]

Where is it in the constitution that grants an unalienable right to welfare?

It's between the abortion and freedom from religion clauses.

Uh,...it's like, a living document...in the penumbra and stuff.

You people that insist we read the text of the document---instead of things they meant to put in there---are raciosts.

 

[DeaconCav06]

The bill allows a representative to be appointed to receive the money for children.

 

[Spot the Wonder]

Where is it in the constitution that grants an unalienable right to welfare?

It doesn't.

 

[ABCDeac]

The point is that personal accountability is going to have to be written into almost all entitlement programs - welfare, healthcare, medicare, education, etc. Government's current approach - of unfettered entitlement programs are failing the country. The systems are terribly manipulated, and the government really has no teeth to ensure they are not manipulated.

We have to incentivize people to care for themselves, in hopes that they will only temporarily need government assistance.

This bill is undoubtedly flawed in several respects, but the argument that "government efforts are better focused elsewhere" is not a valid argument against this particular bill.

 

[DeaconCav06]

You can't get disability benefits if your only disability is drug or alcohol addiction.

However if you weigh 400 pounds, have knee problems, and snort coke you're cool.

 

[DirkTheDeac]

The bill allows a representative to be appointed to receive the money for children.

And it would stand to reason that instead of supporting an adult drug habit more money might actually go to the kids who need it. An example might be that the grandmother of a couple of needy kids oversees the money and the crackhead parent gets themself cleaned up instead of burning through the money.

 

[WakeandBake]

How much does Florida spend each year policing, prosecuting, and incarcerating their drug users? why not just leave them alone and save the money that way? The drug hysteria in America is the stupidest aspect of our culture. Republicans gripe endlessly about inefficient gov programs and then blindly throw billions away on draconian drug laws and then want to spend a few million more drug testing welfare recipients - only to have to throw more money at them in other forms on the back end when they fail the test. think, people.

require a high school diploma to get a welfare check? are you serious? what happens when they can't pass? die of hunger?

 

[ABCDeac]

You can't get disability benefits if your only disability is drug or alcohol addiction.

However if you weigh 400 pounds, have knee problems, and snort coke you're cool.

That is an argument for more accountability programs.

 

[ABCDeac]

How much does Florida spend each year policing, prosecuting, and incarcerating their drug users? why not just leave them alone and save the money that way? The drug hysteria in America is the stupidest aspect of our culture. Republicans gripe endlessly about inefficient gov programs and then blindly throw billions away on draconian drug laws and then want to spend a few million more drug testing welfare recipients - only to have to throw more money at them in other forms on the back end when they fail the test. think, people.

require a high school diploma to get a welfare check? are you serious? what happens when they can't pass? die of hunger?

I agree with you here - we have lost the War on Drugs, and it is time to stop fighting that war the way we always have in the past - i.e., ridiculous laws and sentencing programs. Better to try to enforce it through accountability programs - if you want to use drugs, fine. Just don't expect assistance from the taxpayers if you do.

 

[PhDeac]

The point is that personal accountability is going to have to be written into almost all entitlement programs - welfare, healthcare, medicare, education, etc. Government's current approach - of unfettered entitlement programs are failing the country. The systems are terribly manipulated, and the government really has no teeth to ensure they are not manipulated.

We have to incentivize people to care for themselves, in hopes that they will only temporarily need government assistance.

This bill is undoubtedly flawed in several respects, but the argument that "government efforts are better focused elsewhere" is not a valid argument against this particular bill.

A few thoughts. I wish your logic applied to the private sector, especially the banks.

Second, are you including prison and criminal justice in your entitlement programs? It seems crazy to me that we're reluctant to spend money to help drug users but we'll spend much more than that incarcerating drug users and providing for their food, shelter, and basic health care needs.