Where Do You Guys Stand On Drug Testing For Welfare....

[upinsmoke]

I realize this. I'm addressing VK's attitude -- "They're illegal, dammit!!11!!1" posts. "Oh no, sumbuddy smoked the pots!!!111!, They're on the welfare!!!!11!"

I wouldn't call a pothead a crackhead because it's not close to the same thing, but other than that, he's basically right. I know that pot use is largely accepted by society these days, and personally, I think that it's stupid that it is illegal, but, nevertheless, it's still illegal. If you're going to test people for coke, smack, whatever, you've got to give the same consideration for pot.

Alcohol and nicotine are far more dangerous than THC. If the government SHOULD test welfare recipients for use, then by this logic, the legal drugs should be made illegal. Hey, it's only fair.

[VinnieKulick]

Again with the 'but cigarettes and beer are legal" argument?


I think we SHOULD test for ILLEGAL drugs.

Don't want to be tested for illegal drugs? Don't get the government handout.

It's pretty simple.

[bane]

At the risk of this degenerating into a discussion about how pot should or shouldn't be legalized, I'll leave that one alone. For the time being, it's still illegal. Neither alcohol or nicotine is. End of story.

[upinsmoke]

Again with the 'but cigarettes and beer are legal" argument?


I think we SHOULD test for ILLEGAL drugs.

Don't want to be tested for illegal drugs? Don't get the government handout.

It's pretty simple.

It's alright to keep on drinking, because YOU like it, right? Those things SHOULDN'T be made illegal, is that what you're implying? "Just go after the illegal ones, because they're not MY drug?" Nice logic.

[upinsmoke]

...but hey, since we're talking about welfare recipients wasting money... many welfare recipients smoke cigarettes/tobacco products and drink alcohol like it's going out of style. Should the government test for that also? I mean, since they're wasting taxpayer money on drugs and all that shit.

[VinnieKulick]

It's alright to keep on drinking, because YOU like it, right? Those things SHOULDN'T be made illegal, is that what you're implying? "Just go after the illegal ones, because they're not MY drug?" Nice logic.

No. You go after the ILLEGAL ones because they are ILLEGAL.
Is that a hard concept?

Please point out where I said that pot should not be legal.

[VinnieKulick]

...but hey, since we're talking about welfare recipients wasting money... many welfare recipients smoke cigarettes/tobacco products and drink alcohol like it's going out of style. Should the government test for that also? I mean, since they're wasting taxpayer money on drugs and all that shit.

Well, you can't buy those with food stamps. But, nice try.

[upinsmoke]

It's alright to keep on drinking, because YOU like it, right? Those things SHOULDN'T be made illegal, is that what you're implying? "Just go after the illegal ones, because they're not MY drug?" Nice logic.

No. You go after the ILLEGAL ones because they are ILLEGAL.
Is that a hard concept?

Please point out where I said that pot should not be legal.

So... you're looking for a way to trip people up on a technicality so they can't get assistance? Is that right?

It's still ok for them to smoke and drink on the welfare dollar. Understood -- gotcha.

[upinsmoke]

...but hey, since we're talking about welfare recipients wasting money... many welfare recipients smoke cigarettes/tobacco products and drink alcohol like it's going out of style. Should the government test for that also? I mean, since they're wasting taxpayer money on drugs and all that shit.

Well, you can't buy those with food stamps. But, nice try.

No, what you could do with food stamps -- before it became an credit-type of card -- was to buy nickel gum after nickel gum, get the 90-odd cents in change (if not all at one store - then spread across different stores), THEN buy the alcohol and tobacco, lol. That is, if you didn't already find a corrupt store owner willing to take your welfare dollars in exchange for beer and cigarettes.

[VinnieKulick]

Hey look! Upinsmoke is talking about something that hasn't been possible for at least 5-10 years.

It's alright to keep on drinking, because YOU like it, right? Those things SHOULDN'T be made illegal, is that what you're implying? "Just go after the illegal ones, because they're not MY drug?" Nice logic.

No. You go after the ILLEGAL ones because they are ILLEGAL.
Is that a hard concept?

Please point out where I said that pot should not be legal.

So... you're looking for a way to trip people up on a technicality so they can't get assistance? Is that right?

It's still ok for them to smoke and drink on the welfare dollar. Understood -- gotcha.

No, I am not looking to trip them up on a TECHNICALITY, unless the TECHNICALITY is that they broke the law.

And again, yes, it's perfectly fine for people to engage in LEGAL ACTIVITY 'on the welfare dollar'.

[upinsmoke]

Hey look! Upinsmoke is talking about something that hasn't been possible for at least 5-10 years.

I have no idea. Maybe someone who works in a convenience or grocery store can tell us how the welfare recipients are skirting the law these days.

-----

No, I am not looking to trip them up on a TECHNICALITY, unless the TECHNICALITY is that they broke the law.

And again, yes, it's perfectly fine for people to engage in LEGAL ACTIVITY 'on the welfare dollar'.

Ah, so it's OK to drink and smoke yourself to death on the backs of the taxpayer, as long as alcohol and tobacco are LEGAL. Why, they're just as good as welfare steak and cheese!

[CrouchingStonerHiddenBong]

HAHA!

Dude, you can totally buy weed or any other drug with foodstamps. Always have been able to and always will be.

You obviously aren't hoodrich - two for one, baby.

[VinnieKulick]

I don't know any state that still has "food stamps". Just about every single one has switched to the debit card system.

So, no, you can't directly BUY weed, cigarettes or beer with food stamps.
You may be able to buy something, and trade it, barter it or whatever, but the argument that he was making that people should be tested for nicotine and alchahol if they are on public assistance was flawed.

[upinsmoke]

I don't know any state that still has "food stamps". Just about every single one has switched to the debit card system.

So you think there's no way around that...

So, no, you can't directly BUY weed, cigarettes or beer with food stamps.
You may be able to buy something, and trade it, barter it or whatever, but the argument that he was making that people should be tested for nicotine and alchahol (sic) if they are on public assistance was flawed.

Where did anyone say you could buy weed, cigarettes and beer with food stamps legally? We're talking about illegal activities, since you're so hung up on the legality of it. The legal drugs are more dangerous, so they definitely should be included right along with the other drugs, hypothetically, of course. To say otherwise, which I'm sure you will, is hypocritical, to say the very least.

The more rules get made, the more people will find a way around them and the more it will cost the taxpayer. Get it? Some fiscal conservative YOU are.

[chickenona]

I'm against drug testing across the board. I don't think there's ever a situation where it's warranted unless somebody shows up for work clearly inebriated. And requiring it to receive government benefits? Isn't that unconstitutional anyway?

[thewonkytits]

I wish I could say I was for it but, what about the children? They deserve to be fed even if their parents are on drugs. Also, if busted, and the people get their benefits taken away, can you imagine how much crime will skyrocket?

[vlad]

I wish I could say I was for it but, what about the children? They deserve to be fed even if their parents are on drugs. Also, if busted, and the people get their benefits taken away, can you imagine how much crime will skyrocket?

My thought as well...

Plus there's this underlying pissiness to it. And as was pointed out...Vinnie and his porn. Why not make it so that the agency that the recipient gets their goodies from is able to check the recipients computer for porn! Make them take a breath test for alcohol or nicotine.

And has it not occurred to anyone that some pot smokers might be growing their own (is that a rural thing?) and not buying it. I can't stand the smell of the stuff myself...but I don't give a tinker's damn if someone is smoking it.

Yeah, it's the pissy I don't like. And what bane said.

And shouldn't we be drug testing the CEOs os the companies we bail out if we are going that route? I mean, why begrudge someone on unemployment (which they have actually earned) or "welfare" when he have givens billions to large companies that obviously were stoned on something when they made the decisions they did.

[tin00can]

If the cops can use a simple urine test to determine if a suspect is under the influence of a chemical, then it's already proven to be accurate enough in the eyes of the court.

Secondly, I assure you, you can lump all the other "addicts" in with whatever drug you happen to prefer, and it doesn't take away from the fact that you are a drug abuser.


For once I wish the people who love their drug of choice so much that they always want to debate it, would just say "I like getting fucked up" instead of "but drinking is legal" and "there's no victim" and all the other bullshit excuses they use.

There really isn't any such thing as a "simple urine test" when lawyers get involved. One of my many collateral duties in the Navy was urinalysis program coordinator, and trust me, it was far from simple. Witness have to be trained and refreshed, testing materials stored in a tamper-proof environment, paperwork triple-signed, safes inventoried...and if any one single thing was fucked up the whole thing went out the window.

This gets back to what Bane said: it would take a huge new bureaucracy to perform even entry drug tests for welfare recipients and then there would still be lawsuits galore. I'm in favor of it, but I know it isn't practical. Unless you get massive funding for it.

[VinnieKulick]

Where did anyone say you could buy weed, cigarettes and beer with food stamps legally? We're talking about illegal activities, since you're so hung up on the legality of it. The legal drugs are more dangerous, so they definitely should be included right along with the other drugs, hypothetically, of course. To say otherwise, which I'm sure you will, is hypocritical, to say the very least.

UM Hello dumbfuck, YOU ARE the one who was talking about taking away people's public assistance if they were using LEGAL substances.

I was the one who said "you can't BUY those items with foodstamps".

There really isn't any such thing as a "simple urine test" when lawyers get involved. One of my many collateral duties in the Navy was urinalysis program coordinator, and trust me, it was far from simple. Witness have to be trained and refreshed, testing materials stored in a tamper-proof environment, paperwork triple-signed, safes inventoried...and if any one single thing was fucked up the whole thing went out the window.

This gets back to what Bane said: it would take a huge new bureaucracy to perform even entry drug tests for welfare recipients and then there would still be lawsuits galore. I'm in favor of it, but I know it isn't practical. Unless you get massive funding for it.

A huge new bureaucracy? How much of a bureaucracy is it for parole officers to test people on parole? They can have you piss in a cup when you do your reporting and test it right there, and call the judge. There's a HUGE difference between testing somebody who's on public aid and the government testing somebody who may have gotten fifty thousand dollars worth of training. twenty thousand dollar reenlistment bonuses, etc. All of the checks and balances in the Navy system is to protect the Navy AND the Sailor. I remember peeing in the little cup, making sure the seal was on, making sure everything was signed in the right place, etc.

Went with my cousin who was on parole to report and they tested him on the spot, and called the judge when he came back positive for THC and Coke. So, it's NOT a big complicated system.

[SmokeyRamone]

philosophically, I tend to agree that this should be implemented, but the reality is that we're talking about bigger government and more bureaucracy, and in that case no thanks. But even if they did implement it, should it stop with people on welfare? How about everyone on unemployment, or anyone who receives any kind of government assistance at all

in the end, I think it's kids who would be hurt the most by something like this, if their mom loses her welfare money because she smoked some pot, who's ultimately going to support said kid, not that I condone being a pothead mother, but at least said kid currently has a roof over his or her head. Child abandonment cases would be bound to skyrocket if and when their parents can't afford to keep taking care of them

we should be looking at all the ways we can make government smaller these days, not bigger, this would just end up being a big clusterfuck that would take years to implement and they'd probably never find a way to do it efficiently

[SmokeyRamone]

A huge new bureaucracy? How much of a bureaucracy is it for parole officers to test people on parole? They can have you piss in a cup when you do your reporting and test it right there, and call the judge. There's a HUGE difference between testing somebody who's on public aid and the government testing somebody who may have gotten fifty thousand dollars worth of training. twenty thousand dollar reenlistment bonuses, etc. All of the checks and balances in the Navy system is to protect the Navy AND the Sailor. I remember peeing in the little cup, making sure the seal was on, making sure everything was signed in the right place, etc.

Went with my cousin who was on parole to report and they tested him on the spot, and called the judge when he came back positive for THC and Coke. So, it's NOT a big complicated system.

do all welfare recipients have case workers similar to parole or probation officers? I'm pretty sure they don't, so then they'd all have to be assigned one, and that's where the bureaucracy would start. Most welfare recipients just get a check in the mail every month, now they'd have to report to someone, which would require office space, and of course the cost of the tests, sorry Vinnie, but there's not currently a system in place for the welfare department to drug test people, it would have to be created, and knowing how efficient the government is, case workers and office space would be just the beginning of a whole lot of expenses, all paid for by tax dollars

[bane]

A huge new bureaucracy? How much of a bureaucracy is it for parole officers to test people on parole? They can have you piss in a cup when you do your reporting and test it right there, and call the judge. There's a HUGE difference between testing somebody who's on public aid and the government testing somebody who may have gotten fifty thousand dollars worth of training. twenty thousand dollar reenlistment bonuses, etc. All of the checks and balances in the Navy system is to protect the Navy AND the Sailor. I remember peeing in the little cup, making sure the seal was on, making sure everything was signed in the right place, etc.

Went with my cousin who was on parole to report and they tested him on the spot, and called the judge when he came back positive for THC and Coke. So, it's NOT a big complicated system.

Holy lawsuits batman! They aren't criminals. They're people who are down on their luck. You aren't going to be able to treat a welfare recipient with the same lack of respect that parolees get. You'll have to send them to a clinic, just like employers do. Then the clinic will test it and send the results back to whoever will handle the input of information on that side. If you don't think it'll be a whole new bureaucracy, you're not thinking this through.

[upinsmoke]

UM Hello dumbfuck, YOU ARE the one who was talking about taking away people's public assistance if they were using LEGAL substances.--
I was the one who said "you can't BUY those items with foodstamps".

Yes, you fucking retarded window-licker. To arbitrarily test would be the equivalent of using technicalities to deny people welfare benefits without probable cause. Hey, but I bet you don't EVER bend a law, right? By your convoluted logic, anyone who's ever made a mistake, or bent a corrupt law should be denied any kind of public assistance, Yet you seem to think it's "ok" for someone to do legal, but MORE DEADLY substances. No matter that they're spending money gotten by, PUBLIC WELFARE (presumably while they don't have a job). Good motherfucking christ on welfare cheese, you're either fucking stupid, or you were a school hall monitor.

[chickenona]

Drug tests are also extremely expensive to conduct. That's why most businesses whose insurance requires UAs for employees generally DON'T test anyone other than drivers or equipment operators - they just make you sign a consent form saying that you'll have to do it if they ever tell you to (which they usually won't because each test costs an arm and a leg).

And thanks to EYUN and bane for articulating in more detail what I was pointing out in an earlier post - that such testing for welfare recipients would be so unconstitutional it ain't even funny.

[lerxstcat]

I'll restate what I said on the pot thread. Most welfare recipients are single parents. They get welfare because they have kids. In my state a single male can't even APPLY for welfare, it is only for families with kids.

So if you want to tie the benefits to drug testing, in effect you are saying you are willing to starve the kids to punish the parents. Besides the obvious privacy issues of drug testing without cause, you're punishing the children for the sins of the parents which is patently unfair, and cruel.

[VinnieKulick]

It's a violation of privacy because the govt. doesn't have probable cause to search you.

Oh, you mean like when you get pulled over for a broken tail light and the cop automatically has probable cause to search your car? It's a grey area. And, if the law were changed to require testing, it would be the law, until overturned by an appeals court. However, I don't know anywhere in the constitution where it says that every individual has a "right" to government assistance.

If you are on parole or parole, the govt has probable cause to search you.

Really? I get sent to jail for assault and then get paroled, and now it is 'probable' that I am now abusing drugs?

The 4th Amendment prohibits govt. from testing recipients of welfare for drugs. You can't force them to consent to a search to receive benefits because the consent to the search wouldn't be voluntary. "Either consent to a search or your family doesn't eat", that doesn't work in the United States. Move to China or Cuba if you want to live in that world.

Is applying for state or federal assistance voluntary? I've never seen anybody being FORCED to go and apply for unemployment, or food stamps. You have to go there on your own free will, no?
You have to provide proof of income, proof of the existence of your children, proof of rent, etc. How is proof you don't take drugs any different if it's applied during the screening process?

[bane]

Vinnie- You're aware that parolees are still technically serving their sentence right? They're still controlled by the state under whatever rules the state deems necessary. They essentially have NO rights other than the basic shit that even people in prison get. Your comparison to welfare recipients doesn't wash, at all. It's apples and oranges. Being on welfare isn't a criminal act and welfare recipient's rights are as intact as yours or any other citizen's. When you're pulled over for a broken tail light, you are in violation of the law. There is some grey area as to illegal search and seizure as an officer needs a whole lot more than the fact that they stopped you to search your vehicle and any half ass lawyer will get it thrown out in a second, but, never the less, you are at least under suspicion of some sort of crime in that instance. You aren't assumed to be under any suspicion of anything whatsoever when you apply for benefits. That would be like making your Dad take a piss test before he can cash his social security check.

[VinnieKulick]

Well, I don't agree.
I think if the requirements clearly stated:
"Must be able to prove they are drug free" then people who weren't wouldn't be applying in the first place.


But, I'm not a Congressman, and I don't write laws, so my opinion really isn't relevant.

[bane]

OK, I'll ask you straight out. Should your Father or Grandfather have to take a drug test to qualify for social security benefits? What do you think the reaction would be if we made that law? Welfare isn't any different. I know you're envisioning a bunch of never do wells that haven't worked a day in their lives, but the truth is, every single one of us pays into the system so that it's there when we need it. If I had some kind of dibilitating accident that robbed me of my ability to work, It could be me. It could be you. How would you feel if they told you, a fine upstanding citizen I'm sure, that you had to piss in a cup like a common criminal in order to qualify for the benefits that your tax dollars have payed for all these years?

Do you still "disagree"?

[lerxstcat]

A huge new bureaucracy? How much of a bureaucracy is it for parole officers to test people on parole? They can have you piss in a cup when you do your reporting and test it right there, and call the judge. There's a HUGE difference between testing somebody who's on public aid and the government testing somebody who may have gotten fifty thousand dollars worth of training. twenty thousand dollar reenlistment bonuses, etc. All of the checks and balances in the Navy system is to protect the Navy AND the Sailor. I remember peeing in the little cup, making sure the seal was on, making sure everything was signed in the right place, etc.

Went with my cousin who was on parole to report and they tested him on the spot, and called the judge when he came back positive for THC and Coke. So, it's NOT a big complicated system.

Holy lawsuits batman! They aren't criminals. They're people who are down on their luck. You aren't going to be able to treat a welfare recipient with the same lack of respect that parolees get. You'll have to send them to a clinic, just like employers do. Then the clinic will test it and send the results back to whoever will handle the input of information on that side. If you don't think it'll be a whole new bureaucracy, you're not thinking this through.

Besides which, Vinnie's whole "Parole officr administering the drug test" scenario is bullshit.

I had an employee who was on parole and the way it worked was, he called a phone number at 7PM each night. If his number came up, he had to go to the test facility - NOT his PO - at 5 AM the next morning to test.

It was a completely different place and system than his PO and they would only report to his PO if he failed to show up to test, or if he tested dirty.

The lines were already so long at the facility that he had to show up at 5AM in order to make sure he got tested in time to make it to work at 8AM, because it was first come, first served. Imagine adding everybody on welfare to that line and it becomes untenable, even if it weren't of questionable legality to even do it to welfare recipients, and if you weren't punishing the children who are innocent.

Vinnie, you're probably against abortion, but you'd starve children to death because their parents do drugs? Think about it, man...