• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Drug Testing for Public Assistance

I think it's a no brainer, but I also find myself thinking everyone that votes should have some sort of valid ID. If you're going to be receiving money from an outside source for support, prove you're not using what money you do have to get high. If you're going to be casting a vote that decides the future of America, prove you are who you say you are. This is simple stuff to me but I know im in the minority. I don't consider myself rupublican or democrat, FWIW.
 
Screamindemon3 said:
I think it's a no brainer, but I also find myself thinking everyone that votes should have some sort of valid ID. If you're going to be receiving money from an outside source for support, prove you're not using what money you do have to get high. If you're going to be casting a vote that decides the future of America, prove you are who you say you are. This is simple stuff to me but I know im in the minority. I don't consider myself rupublican or democrat, FWIW.
Click to expand...

Do you support regular drug testing of elected officials?
 
Screamindemon3 said:
I think it's a no brainer, but I also find myself thinking everyone that votes should have some sort of valid ID. If you're going to be receiving money from an outside source for support, prove you're not using what money you do have to get high. If you're going to be casting a vote that decides the future of America, prove you are who you say you are. This is simple stuff to me but I know im in the minority. I don't consider myself rupublican or democrat, FWIW.
Click to expand...

It costs far more than it saves. It's a stupid idea. Why would you spend $1,000,000 to "save" $300,000?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Do you support regular drug testing of elected officials?
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm cool with that. I have to get drug tested once every 6 months. Why shouldn't they?

Weed shouldn't be illegal but I guess that's a different argument
 
RJKarl said:
It costs far more than it saves. It's a stupid idea. Why would you spend $1,000,000 to "save" $300,000?
Click to expand...

There's a lot of things in life that costs far more than they save. And the money is already out of my pocket at that point. I'd much rather it go to testing and clean recipients than people using their money to feed an addiction and mine to survive.
 
Is the point to save the taxpayers money or punish people?
 
bym051d said:
Is the point to save the taxpayers money or punish people?
Click to expand...

My point would be to not give free handouts to people using theirs for addictions. That's not my definition of "punishment". That's my definition of common sense.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Do you support regular drug testing of elected officials?
Click to expand...

Employees are subject to drug testing all the time, but that is for the protection of the company. There is no "company" for public assistance. The only stakeholder with a personal interest in the outcome is the recipient.
 
Both the last posts don't really buy into the nature of addiction. Interesting take. I would support drug testing for receiving federal benefits if it triggered some sort of treatment protocol rather than punitive responses. I can't see funding for that being too popular with folks pushing testing programs though.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Both the last posts don't really buy into the nature of addiction. Interesting take. I would support drug testing for receiving federal benefits if it triggered some sort of treatment protocol rather than punitive responses. I can't see funding for that being too popular with folks pushing testing programs though.
Click to expand...

Which is where the idea of a compromise could---in a dream world---kick in.

If you are willing to tolerate the idea that there are some people on the right against unconditional public assistance because of the ceiling (read: roof) it sets (rather than just not wanting to shoulder the burden of providing the floor), we should be able to see what conditions we can create which help raise that ceiling.

Compromise idea: "A second positive drug test suspends assistance benefits", but those benefits can be restored upon completion of a 12 week program (for instance), funded by a work requirement and negative testing during probationary testing period, what would you say?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Which is where the idea of a compromise could---in a dream world---kick in.

If you are willing to tolerate the idea that there are some people on the right against unconditional public assistance because of the ceiling (read: roof) it sets (rather than just not wanting to shoulder the burden of providing the floor), we should be able to see what conditions we can create which help raise that ceiling.

Compromise idea: "A second positive drug test suspends assistance benefits", but those benefits can be restored upon completion of a 12 week program (for instance), funded by a work requirement and negative testing during probationary testing period, what would you say?
Click to expand...

That if someone has an addiction powerful enough to jeopardize their ability to survive, than they need more help not less. We could do a lot for addiction with robust public funding for mental health programs beginning at the early childhood level. My wife is a school counselor for a local elementary school operating at more than double the recommended caseload ratios dealing with kids with PTSD that have seen some shit I can't even imagine. Those kids will likely end up being the folks we are talking about in this hypothetical 10 years from now. Let's be proactive about our drug problems, and you like to point to history of failed programs, the punitive approach to drugs is about as failed as it gets.
 
Where is the evidence that this is effective?

Here are results from various states. It seems like a wasteful exercise.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ing-walker-scott-and-political-pandering/amp/


In FL, it was basically a handout to a drug testing company that Gov. Scott and his wife have a significant stake in.

Seems like all the states found that welfare recipients have a much lower rate of drug use than the general workforce.

Obviously, that makes sense that the poorest Americans wouldn't use drugs as much as everyone else. Drugs are expensive.
 
Are the druggies on welfare fleecing you, jhmd? If so, what data do you have to show that this needs to be addressed in this way? thanks in advance
 
Does public assistance include tax credits?
 
I think when the money from the past 30 years of tax cuts for the wealthy trickles down, the druggie poors will naturally get off welfare cause of all the jobs and opportunity that supply-side economics bestows on the working/poor class. It's science.
 
Screamindemon3 said:
My point would be to not give free handouts to people using theirs for addictions. That's not my definition of "punishment". That's my definition of common sense.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how much money the people get? They aren't feeding their addiction on public assistance.

Did you even read the article that stated that in six of the seven states that did testing, "less than 1%" tested positive? Your position would throw kids off of food stamps, housing subsidies and healthcare when less than one of their parents out of 100 tested dirty.

What would you do about the kids your position harms?

Your position sounds good until you actually deal with what will happen if it's enacted.
 
WakeandBake said:
Are the druggies on welfare fleecing you, jhmd? If so, what data do you have to show that this needs to be addressed in this way? thanks in advance
Click to expand...

It turns out I'm doing okay. I am interested in making their lives better, and I don't see how turning a blind eye to self-destructive, volitional behavior helps.
 
Just legalize everything and treat drug abuse as a public health issue. Not that hard.
 
jhmd2000 said:
It turns out I'm doing okay. I am interested in making their lives better, and I don't see how turning a blind eye to self-destructive, volitional behavior helps.
Click to expand...

I see, and you believe government is the proper vehicle to help people? Fascinating

How do you propose the government address self-destructive, volitional behavior by those not putting their hand in your wallet?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top