• 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

WakeandBake said:
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?
Click to expand...

By ceasing to enable it, yes. The first step in solving a problem is to stop making it worse. Weird that this must be debated. You do want to help, right?
 
jhmd2000 said:
By ceasing to enable it, yes. The first step in solving a problem is to stop making it worse. Weird that this must be debated. You do want to help, right?
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that welfare has made addiction problems worse? Not sure why I both asking, because of course you do.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Do you really believe that welfare has made addiction problems worse? Not sure why I both asking, because of course you do.
Click to expand...

That question assumes all drug abuse is the product of addition. Of course it isn't.

If forward really is a shared objective, how do we get there without addressing behaviors within people's control? "Here's how you can not self-disqualify" seems like a good starting point to me.
 
jhmd2000 said:
That question assumes all drug abuse is the product of addition. Of course it isn't.

If forward really is a shared objective, how do we get there without addressing behaviors within people's control? "Here's how you can not self-disqualify" seems like a good starting point to me.
Click to expand...

People who will likely get caught by said tests are addicts. Other folks will just manipulate this system too. How often are folks tested, how does that work, where are these tests administered, do they lead to costs administered by recipients? These are important questions to answer if your desire for this is more than just easing your own conscience or punishing poor people for not behaving like you think they should. Because rich folks do drugs too. Hell, our current President does tons of cocaine.
 
jhmd2000 said:
By ceasing to enable it, yes. The first step in solving a problem is to stop making it worse. Weird that this must be debated. You do want to help, right?
Click to expand...

Did you not start a thread to inspire discussion so you could reveal your pro-drug testing stance?

In this benevolent endeavor of yours, you have chosen to ignore all experts in the area of drug addiction and instead focus on removing basic sustenance funding to "help" them. Its just a handy coincidence that this folds neatly into your lower taxes and cut social programs small government world view. neato

So when the poor druggies who now don't have their hand in your wallet turn to crime and prostitution to support their habit what does your plan do to "help" them?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
People who will likely get caught by said tests are addicts. Other folks will just manipulate this system too. How often are folks tested, how does that work, where are these tests administered, do they lead to costs administered by recipients? These are important questions to answer if your desire for this is more than just easing your own conscience or punishing poor people for not behaving like you think they should. Because rich folks do drugs too. Hell, our current President does tons of cocaine.
Click to expand...

The same way we test public sector employees. The same way I was tested whilst in the employ of others. This isn't a complicated process when you care about the end product, be it your business or in this case, someone on the wrong end of our economic system.
 
WakeandBake said:
Did you not start a thread to inspire discussion so you could reveal your pro-drug testing stance?

In this benevolent endeavor of yours, you have chosen to ignore all experts in the area of drug addiction and instead focus on removing basic sustenance funding to "help" them. Its just a handy coincidence that this folds neatly into your lower taxes and cut social programs small government world view. neato

So when the poor druggies who now don't have their hand in your wallet turn to crime and prostitution to support their habit what does your plan do to "help" them?
Click to expand...

So I will put you down for a "No", then?
 
The I don't want my taxes going to X is such a dumb argument since the majority of people pay so little in taxes or their taxes are so insignificant. If the idea is that money could be put to better uses sure but lets breakdown X in this case. The median household income is 52,000. Now ignoring mortgage deductions, children, etc you have approximate federal taxes of $6,000.

Now on that 6,000 for simplicity we allocate that all to welfare. In reality excluding Medicaid roughly 6% of that goes to welfare spending, so 360 dollars of your precious money. However even using all the money those non mooches of society contribute for those gaming the system you divide 6,000 by 109 million give or take. Lets start kicking people off, I need to save that .000055 per.
 
jhmd2000 said:
The same way we test public sector employees. The same way I was tested whilst in the employ of others. This isn't a complicated process when you care about the end product, be it your business or in this case, someone on the wrong end of our economic system.
Click to expand...

Public sector employees are only drug tested at the start of employment and random tests are only lawful for people in safety sensitive positions (police, ambulance drivers, fire, etc). Otherwise you need a reasonable suspicion of use, and I think of being under the influence while at work (not lawyer, not legal advice for any public sector managers). A, say, librarian, can use drugs outside of the workplace more or less at will after beginning work without being overly fearful of losing her employment.
 
lol

I just find it a fun coincidence that all your plans to "help" the poor and sick involve taking away public money and services.

I'm wondering why all the great helpers of people human civilization has known in its history weren't hip to this cool and proven method of helping the poor and sick. Too bad you weren't around to coach Jesus and Mother Theresa and them on how to be so helpful.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Public sector employees are only drug tested at the start of employment and random tests are only lawful for people in safety sensitive positions (police, ambulance drivers, fire, etc). Otherwise you need a reasonable suspicion of use, and I think of being under the influence while at work (not lawyer, not legal advice for any public sector managers). A, say, librarian, can use drugs outside of the workplace more or less at will after beginning work without being overly fearful of losing her employment.
Click to expand...

I am quite familiar with the drug testing process of certain public sector employees, down to the nanogram/mL cutoff levels of the metabolites. We can do this if we want to. Do we?
 
WakeandBake said:
lol

I just find it a fun coincidence that all your plans to "help" the poor and sick involve taking away public money and services.

I'm wondering why all the great helpers of people human civilization has known in its history weren't hip to this cool and proven method of helping the poor and sick. Too bad you weren't around to coach Jesus and Mother Theresa and them on how to be so helpful.
Click to expand...

I know what my answer is; I was asking for other opinions. Yours is apparently a "No."

YouTube "Christopher Hitchens Mother Theresa".
 
jhmd2000 said:
I am quite familiar with the drug testing process of certain public sector employees, down to the nanogram/mL cutoff levels of the metabolites. We can do this if we want to. Do we?
Click to expand...

I think we're agreed that people on public assistance are not like cops, firefighters, or EMS drivers. What exactly is there for us to "do?"
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
The I don't want my taxes going to X is such a dumb argument since the majority of people pay so little in taxes or their taxes are so insignificant. If the idea is that money could be put to better uses sure but lets breakdown X in this case. The median household income is 52,000. Now ignoring mortgage deductions, children, etc you have approximate federal taxes of $6,000.

Now on that 6,000 for simplicity we allocate that all to welfare. In reality excluding Medicaid roughly 6% of that goes to welfare spending, so 360 dollars of your precious money. However even using all the money those non mooches of society contribute for those gaming the system you divide 6,000 by 109 million give or take. Lets start kicking people off, I need to save that .000055 per.
Click to expand...

The math here does a good job of rebutting the idea that conditioning benefits on healthy behaviors is a money play for the taxpayer. I'm doing fine. This ain't about me or my tax bill. Wall off the rest of the world from the person on welfare. How do drugs make their life better? Just stay there and give me an answer I can believe.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
I think we're agreed on that being a most important object of public policy, too.
Click to expand...

If we want the poor to be in positions to accept jobs like cops, firefighters, EMS drivers and the like, why not aspire to standards required to actually accept those jobs? Again, I need to know why not. Why not?
 
Anyways, to answer the question posed in the OP, I am opposed to suspicionless drug testing generally, but especially of poor folks.

And what stuck in my mind- and I'm sure the minds of my colleagues - was a remark made by Dr Robert Tabash, the medical director as we stood over an incubator in the intensive ward. All of this was important, he said, simply because 'the poorest deserve the best' (I promised I would quote him today by name; it's the least I can do to give him the honour he merits). 'The poorest deserve the best': when you hear that, I wonder if you can take in just how revolutionary it is. They do not deserve what's left over when the more prosperous have had their fill, or what can be patched together on a minimal budget as some sort of damage limitation. And they don't 'deserve' the best because they've worked for it and everyone agrees they've earned it. They deserve it simply because their need is what it is and because where human dignity is least obvious it's most important to make a fuss about it.
Click to expand...

They deserve the best because their need is what it is and because where human dignity is least obvious it's most important to make a fuss about it. Indeed.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
If we want the poor to be in positions to accept jobs like cops, firefighters, EMS drivers and the like, why not aspire to standards required to actually accept those jobs? Again, I need to know why not. Why not?
Click to expand...

My understanding from the testing in TN and other places is that these drug tests are showing that almost no people on public assistance are drug users (in those places). I don't think drug use has been shown to be a big problem for people in this situation.

It's fair, on the other hand, to point out that maybe we have a safety net that isn't reaching people who have serious drug problems. And also that I know a handful of law enforcement folks who say it's tough to find young prospective LEOs who aren't using recreational drugs occasionally. But I don't understand why either of those facts would matter to drug testing the people who are today receiving public assistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top