Should people on welfare have to take mandatory drug tests?

[R&Cs4]

As the title states...what does everyone think on the matter? Im a liberal...but i think that if the federal govt is paying out welfare $ they need to be sure its going to people that use it for the right reasons.

[djwimbo]

yes

[$4c@b]

yes, but who's going to pay for them?

[R&Cs4]

I think the cost of the tests would be far less than the $ the government would save in not paying out to drug addicts

[djwimbo]

yes, but who's going to pay for them?

The people taking the tests.

$7 out of their welfare check isn't going to make or break them.

The welfare system pays out more to those who have put little to none into it, than help anybody that's put anything into it at all.

[1997gtx]

This has been tried before and failed. The rate of those on welfare doing drugs is no different than the rate of those not on welfare. Another welfare myth.

And, it's unconstitutional.
--Adam

[R&Cs4]

This has been tried before and failed. The rate of those on welfare doing drugs is no different than the rate of those not on welfare. Another welfare myth.

And, it's unconstitutional.
--Adam

yes but the difference is that the people doing drugs on welfare are using the government aide to pay for their drug habits.

[1997gtx]

yes but the difference is that the people doing drugs on welfare are using the government aide to pay for their drug habits.

So the argument is not that people on welfare are more apt to do drugs, but that those on welfare shouldn't be allowed to use tax payer dollars to buy drugs?

[CONTROL TWO]

welfare = lame

[Ramathorn]

Yes to the poll... and along with that they should be forced to work at McDonalds or Burger King or anywhere they hire uneducated scumbags who are living on our tax dollars. Then welfare should supplement the difference due to the low income of working at those places, since they are actually making an attempt to work and earn for themselves.

Another thing I believe is they should be forced to join the Army or any branch they choose, at least they will be provided for while serving our country.

On a side note... my friends cousin is on welfare, and has 2 kids, from what I understand welfare runs for 5 years after a kid is born. So they realized this when their 5 years was coming due and decided to have a 3rd kid to continue on welfare for another 5 years. On top of this they live with their mom in a 2 family house, and get rental assistance from welfare to the tune of $1000 a month, which they just pocket since they are living rent free. So they have pocketed over 50k in the past 5 or 6 years. They have nicer furniture than most people I know and flat screen tvs xbox'x and all sorts of expensive things in their house.

[1997gtx]

Yes to the poll... and along with that they should be forced to work at McDonalds or Burger King or anywhere they hire uneducated scumbags who are living on our tax dollars. Then welfare should supplement the difference due to the low income of working at those places, since they are actually making an attempt to work and earn for themselves.

Another thing I believe is they should be forced to join the Army or any branch they choose, at least they will be provided for while serving our country.

On a side note... my friends cousin is on welfare, and has 2 kids, from what I understand welfare runs for 5 years after a kid is born. So they realized this when their 5 years was coming due and decided to have a 3rd kid to continue on welfare for another 5 years. On top of this they live with their mom in a 2 family house, and get rental assistance from welfare to the tune of $1000 a month, which they just pocket since they are living rent free. So they have pocketed over 50k in the past 5 or 6 years. They have nicer furniture than most people I know and flat screen tvs xbox'x and all sorts of expensive things in their house.

[R&Cs4]

So the argument is not that people on welfare are more apt to do drugs, but that those on welfare shouldn't be allowed to use tax payer dollars to buy drugs?

correct.

[CONTROL TWO]

i dont know whats more disheartening: hearing stories like v_dub's or knowing that in mass the people on welfare can have their auto insurance and registration fully paid for by welfare (at least at one point this was true, not sure if its been canned recently)

policies that give people an incentive NOT to get off welfare = completely retarded to me

[Mat2.0T]

welfare = lame

[marty was here]

This has been tried before and failed. The rate of those on welfare doing drugs is no different than the rate of those not on welfare. Another welfare myth.

And, it's unconstitutional.
--Adam

educate us

[jason1st]

I voted NO but only because "who is going to pay for the drug testing"?

I think if you are on welfare you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[itsbigj05]

So the argument is not that people on welfare are more apt to do drugs, but that those on welfare shouldn't be allowed to use tax payer dollars to buy drugs?

That's the way I interpreted it. IIRC, a lot of drug money gets funneled to Latin America. Some of this money goes to financing terrorist organizations. So, by spending welfare money on drugs, the US government has indirectly funded the same terrorists that are trying to destroy the US.

[1997gtx]

correct.

What about people receiving money from Social Security? Should we drug test all old people, too? What about people getting government disability? Should we drug test them too?

We give out far more money for those things than welfare. Might as well start with the big handouts.
--Adam

[Kevin2772]

Couldnt agree more...if you need welfare, you shouldnt be able to afford the drugs. If you fail a drug test, then you should not get welfare. Of course im jsut a republican and would be happy watching them rot to death on the streets. Fuck'em.

[Kevin2772]

What about people receiving money from Social Security? Should we drug test all old people, too? What about people getting government disability? Should we drug test them too?

We give out far more money for those things than welfare. Might as well start with the big handouts.
--Adam

I dont see why not. If you want a hand out, then you should play by the rules. Plain and simple. I hate driving past the projects here in cincy and seeing a fucking satellite dish on the side of the building....

[1997gtx]

educate us

It violates the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches.

Michigan is the only state to attempt to drug test welfare recipients. And it was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003.

See: Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (E.D. Mich. 2000), aff’d, 60 F. App’x 601 (6th Cir. 2003)

Also, most states have pretty strict privacy laws that are even stronger than the US Constitution.
--Adam

[1997gtx]

I voted NO but only because "who is going to pay for the drug testing"?

This is another good point. State governments have tried to drug test before in smaller amounts. They found out that they paid more in drug tests than they would have saved by removing anyone they found on drugs from welfare.
--Adam

[Ramathorn]

What about people receiving money from Social Security? Should we drug test all old people, too? What about people getting government disability? Should we drug test them too?

We give out far more money for those things than welfare. Might as well start with the big handouts.
--Adam

I think that is a completely different situation. First for the most part the people that are on Social Security are only collecting what they spent years contributing to. What have the people on welfare contributed?

Another thing is there are many older people that do drugs, and have been doing so their whole lives, but prior to Social Security they were paying for it out of their income. Now not all people rely on Social Security, they may have retirement funds and other sources to pay for their drug habits.

But I see your point as to the reason of drug testing, I think it should be done since it is provided by the government.

[1997gtx]

That's the way I interpreted it. IIRC, a lot of drug money gets funneled to Latin America. Some of this money goes to financing terrorist organizations. So, by spending welfare money on drugs, the US government has indirectly funded the same terrorists that are trying to destroy the US.

So, should we apply that same logic to Social Security, Medicaid, etc...?

[1997gtx]

Couldnt agree more...if you need welfare, you shouldnt be able to afford the drugs. If you fail a drug test, then you should not get welfare. Of course im jsut a republican and would be happy watching them rot to death on the streets. Fuck'em.

[1997gtx]

I dont see why not. If you want a hand out, then you should play by the rules. Plain and simple. I hate driving past the projects here in cincy and seeing a fucking satellite dish on the side of the building....

So because you drive by a 'project' and they have Sat. TV, they are on welfare and abusing the system?
--Adam

[doobiesdaddy]

welfare = lame

What about people that are collecting welfare because they are permanently disabled? Are they lame too?

[R&Cs4]

and not to start a new arguement here...but the government could spend the money in much better ways...like supporting its troops when they return home from service.

social security makes sense to me, as does disability. but if you CAN work but you CHOOSE not to, its a completely different story.

[Kevin2772]

So because you drive by a 'project' and they have Sat. TV, they are on welfare and abusing the system?
--Adam

Honestly, yes more then likely. This was the area voted most dangerous in the US just a few months ago, which i found kind of funny cause its bad but I didnt think it was that bad.

[1997gtx]

I think that is a completely different situation. First for the most part the people that are on Social Security are only collecting what they spent years contributing to. What have the people on welfare contributed?

Says you. Where are you numbers to support your myth? Most people on welfare are kids. How are kids supposed to 'contribute'?

Another thing is there are many older people that do drugs, and have been doing so their whole lives, but prior to Social Security they were paying for it out of their income. Now not all people rely on Social Security, they may have retirement funds and other sources to pay for their drug habits.

Again, 'some' is apparently OK for SS recipients, but not for welfare? Seems to me like you having some preconceived notions about people on welfare is what is leading you to be OK with drug testing some receiving public aide but not others.

But I see your point as to the reason of drug testing, I think it should be done since it is provided by the government.

So, you think anyone receiving public aid should get tested?
--Adam

[MikeWire]

I don't get the point of this poll.

What is the statistical correlation between welfare and drugs? Meaning, how many people who are on welfare are also on drugs? What about illegal drugs vs. OTC or prescription drugs? And I am asking for facts, not speculation.

And I suppose there are many reasons to be on welfare like mental problems, lazy, bad luck, poor life skills, etc. and I'm sure there is a percentage that are also abusing drugs.

People who are on drugs have deeper psychological issues than just drugs, so how about a more comprehensive approach, like include psych help, mentor program, or some kind of mental outlet for them to reach out for.

But...the same help could (should) be offered for welfare recipients.

edit: oh lots of posts before mine went through, reading...

Is this thread maybe more about abusing or working the welfare system?

[1997gtx]

and not to start a new arguement here...but the government could spend the money in much better ways...like supporting its troops when they return home from service.

social security makes sense to me, as does disability. but if you CAN work but you CHOOSE not to, its a completely different story.

Or we could 'save' money by not sending troops to war in the first place.

Who is choosing not to work?

Another welfare myth.

You think people WANT to be on welfare???
--Adam

[Kevin2772]

I don't get the point of this poll.


Is this thread maybe more about abusing or working the welfare system?

That was my understanding of it.....

[Kevin2772]

You think people WANT to be on welfare???
--Adam

Id be willing to bet there are some that do....

[1997gtx]

Honestly, yes more then likely. This was the area voted most dangerous in the US just a few months ago, which i found kind of funny cause its bad but I didnt think it was that bad.

OK - so lets determine this by a place you drive by and an observation you made.

Good scientific research

[marty was here]

It violates the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches.

Michigan is the only state to attempt to drug test welfare recipients. And it was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003.

See: Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (E.D. Mich. 2000), aff’d, 60 F. App’x 601 (6th Cir. 2003)

Also, most states have pretty strict privacy laws that are even stronger than the US Constitution.
--Adam

did a little bit of research

Marchwinski v. Howard
In 1999, the State of Michigan implemented a plan to drug test applicants for public assistance. The ACLU, with the assistance of Drug Policy Alliance, challenged this policy in federal court in the case Marchwinski v. Michigan. For the case, the Alliance conducted a nationwide survey of state drug testing policies with respect to public benefits, revealing that the other 49 states used alternative, far less intrusive methods to detect drug abuse among welfare applicants and recipients. The Alliance study was introduced as evidence in the ACLU brief and was cited by the United States District Court in its decision to strike down Michigan's drug testing policy as unconstitutional.

The State of Michigan appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In the Court of Appeals, Drug Policy Alliance filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Public Health Association and several other organizations opposing Michigan's policy of drug testing applicants for public assistance, arguing that there are far less intrusive and more accurate methods for detecting drug abuse, that suspicionless drug testing is contrary to the goals of self-sufficiency and employability central to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, and that the drug testing erodes the trust relationship between a recipient and social worker. This relationship is essential in helping a recipient achieve the goal of self-sufficiency and independence from the welfare system.

In a decision on October 2002, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit held that Michigan's policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of welfare applicants. However, the full Sixth Circuit granted a motion to rehear the case en banc. The Court then asked Drug Policy Alliance to resubmit its amicus brief to the full Court.

A new hearing was held in March 2003. In April 2003, the 12-member en banc panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the October ruling of the three judge panel and reinstituted the original District Court decision striking down Michigan’s drug testing plan.

correct me if im wrong, but this is a question of manner and execution rather than actual legality.

im sure if there was suspicion of drug use, a person could be tested. for example a spouse or social worker mentioning in suspicision or providing an allegation, a drug test could be administered correct?

[1997gtx]

I don't get the point of this poll.

What is the statistical correlation between welfare and drugs? Meaning, how many people who are on welfare are also on drugs? What about illegal drugs vs. OTC or prescription drugs? And I am asking for facts, not speculation.

And I suppose there are many reasons to be on welfare like mental problems, lazy, bad luck, poor life skills, etc. and I'm sure there is a percentage that are also abusing drugs.

People who are on drugs have deeper psychological issues than just drugs, so how about a more comprehensive approach, like include psych help, mentor program, or some kind of mental outlet for them to reach out for.

But...the same help could (should) be offered for welfare recipients.

edit: oh lots of posts before mine went through, reading...

Is this thread maybe more about abusing or working the welfare system?

But good luck convincing anyone in here that their opinions are based on myths and not facts.
--Adam

[1997gtx]

Id be willing to bet there are some that do....

Hah.

So now we'll go on you driving by a project and seeing a sat. dish and your 'betting' on people wanting to be on welfare as a basis for facts about welfare?

Nice

[1997gtx]

did a little bit of research

correct me if im wrong, but this is a question of manner and execution rather than actual legality.

im sure if there was suspicion of drug use, a person could be tested. for example a spouse or social worker mentioning in suspicision or providing an allegation, a drug test could be administered correct?

What do you mean by execution? You mean 'how' they are giving the drug tests?

I do not know for certain on your 2nd paragraph, but I imagine (and hope) so.

The 4th amendment in the overall case 'is it legal' would really only apply to a broad '1 sized fits all law' like Michigan was trying to do.

I imagine in a smaller, more random, etc... testing size, it would be perfectly legal (and something I would personally support).

But there is just no evidence on a legal or practical basis that blanket drug testing makes sense or works.
--Adam

[Kevin2772]

Just my opinion. I personally dont give a fuck if you like it or not!