Texas advances bill to require drug screening for welfare

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

It's not that complicated. It's not an intrusion when it's voluntary. You want my tax dollars, then here's what you have to do. Don't like it? No problem, get a job.

But it's not only your tax dollars, it's theirs too. I was on unemployment once in my life, and I was happy that I had paid my payroll taxes in the past so that it was there when I needed it. It wasn't voluntary at all...try opting out and you go to jail for tax evasion.

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But it's not only your tax dollars, it's theirs too. I was on unemployment once in my life, and I was happy that I had paid my payroll taxes in the past so that it was there when I needed it. It wasn't voluntary at all...try opting out and you go to jail for tax evasion.

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

I agree you make a good point, just shows anything the govt. does cost 100 times what it should. With all the red tape, I'm sure running a drug program is much more expensive for the taxpayer.

Saw another clip that even with a so called improving economy, people getting food stamps is still increasing, now almost 50 million. The stock market is soaring, but still no real job growth, in fact, last month in many states umemployment rose, it did mine.

We've created an economic model that is creating a two class system. Our jobs still go overseas in mass. The rich are getting richer, now about 15% of the rich control 80% of all real wealth in America. No party is addressing what is needed to build a thriving middle class, both still support the rich getting richer, only difference the Dems want social programs for all the poor created, the GOP just wants them to die on the vine.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Armistead

No party is addressing what is needed to build a thriving middle class, both still support the rich getting richer, only difference the Dems want social programs for all the poor created, the GOP just wants them to die on the vine.

Amen. It's class warfare alright, and it's both sides against the middle.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

No we are not, I've addressed this: the point shouldn't even be to "catch" drug users!

[Tchocky]

No Fourth Amendment trouble there, no?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

No Fourth Amendment trouble there, no?

The appeals courts certainly think there is. So add that to the list of stupid expenses that Texas is incurring with this boondoggle.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No we are not, I've addressed this: the point shouldn't even be to "catch" drug users!

Your right - its not. But what Mookie wants to ignore is that the HHS (A Federal level governmental agency) puts drug abuse at between 5% and 37% based on measurement variables.

"Studies of the prevalence of substance abuse among welfare recipients have varied widely in their findings, with rates of between 4 and 37 percent reported. Much of the difference in prevalence rates found in these studies is due to different data sources, definitions and measurement methods, particularly the different thresholds used to define substance abuse. Another key difference is whether alcohol abuse and/or the abuse of prescription drugs are included in the estimate. In addition, drug use and abuse is higher among single men in States’ General Assistance (GA) caseloads than among single (largely female) parents on TANF. So studies that define welfare to include GA beneficiaries often find higher rates. Typically, lower end estimates of around 5 percent or less focus on indications of diagnosable abuse of or dependence on illicit drugs among TANF or (for early estimates) Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program clients. Higher rates, in the 10 percent range, tend to include any past month use of illicit drugs. Rates in the highest ranges (15 percent or more) usually define substance abuse to include alcohol abuse and include any past year (rather than past month) use of illicit drugs. The highest rate noted to date in any study, 37 percent,[5] included female welfare recipients reporting having used any illicit drug at least once in the past year and/or two or more binge drinking episodes in the past month (with binge drinking defined as having had 5 or more drinks on the same occasion or within a couple of hours)."

Source: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/DrugTesting/ib.shtml

The only way to get the "low" end numbers is to use "diagnosable abuse" indications. Anything else - even a "well I used once about a month ago" leads to 10% or higher numbers. Taking 10% out of the welfare pool - even considering the costs of the testing - would still be a positive on the balance sheet. Dropping 15% or more - all the way up to the "female welfare recpients" who are doing drugs "at least once in the past year" and going out and getting totally wasted 2x or more in the last month - yeah that would be a bonus.

Oh - and seriously - alcohol SHOULD be on the list of abused substances - because if your on welfare - where are you getting the money to go out and get "5 or more drinks" in the space of a couple of hours? Or maybe that's how they get knocked up?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Your right - its not. But what Mookie wants to ignore is that the HHS (A Federal level governmental agency) puts drug abuse at between 5% and 37% based on measurement variables.

No, what you want to ignore is that a governmental search of someone's person requires probable cause. Applying for welfare is not evidence of criminal activity and offers no probable cause.

More victimization and stigmatization of the poor. More populist and childish ideas that offer no real reform or benefit to the taxpayer. If you want to drug test people based on receiving benefits, might as well drug test yourself if you've taken a student loan or a mortgage interest deduction. Buy a Prius? Better unzip before you take that tax credit for buying a green vehicle. How's your "alcohol should be on the list of abused substances" idea now? Hope you didn't have a glass of wine while doing your taxes and calculating that mortgage interest deduction. The Feds are banging on your door with a piss cup.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No, what you want to ignore is that a governmental search of someone's person requires probable cause. Applying for welfare is not evidence of criminal activity and offers no probable cause.

So the ONLY time the government can require a drug test is if they have "probable cause"? Are you sure about that?

Apply to be an employee of the Federal (or local/State) Government sometime. Guess what - you pretty much have to pass a drug screen as a condition of employment. In such a case, the gub'ment has no "probable cause" to create such a mandatory employment condition - but it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Why? Because no one is MAKING anyone apply for governmental employment. By doing so, one is informed of the requirement and their choice to continue to pursue employment is voluntary - meaning they are voluntarily CONSENTING to said "search". There is no difference between that and the APPLICATION for welfare benefits. No one is making someone apply - and if they are informed of the requirement - then their choice to continue the application process is, legally speaking, voluntary consent to the "search".

Yes, I know - a judge said they couldn't do it. Actually, if you look into it, an appellate court (11th Circuit) actually upheld on Feb 26th the TEMPORARY injunction keeping the Florida law from going into effect. However, the fight still isn't over, and the 11th Circuit did not rule the law unconstitutional.

"Judge Rosemary Barkett said attorneys for the state did not prove that children of families who receive TANF are more at risk without drug testing in place."

Because this injunction is still temporary, and the governor has stated that he will take it to the Supreme Court, you can point to one decision all you want - the question is still up in the air.

More victimization and stigmatization of the poor.

Yes, victimization by identifying those with drug issues and getting them help, or refusing to provide them assistance so they can continue to be druggies. Of course - the mere fact that they are drug users makes them "victims" already doesn't it - even though they are CHOOSING to be druggies. Getting them help makes them even more of a victim? Yea ok. Stigmatizing? Really? So again - does it "stigmatize" someone who applies for employment? Or maybe it just "victimizes" them?

More populist and childish ideas that offer no real reform or benefit to the taxpayer.

So removing roughly 10% (or up to 37%) of those on the welfare rolls who are by definition abusing the system - it offers no real reform or benefit? What then is your definition of "real reform"? What things would be?

If you want to drug test people based on receiving benefits, might as well drug test yourself if you've taken a student loan

Uhm... key word - LOAN. It gets paid back. Last I checked, welfare is not some loan - its a "gift" from the benevolent gub'ment that is never "paid back" by the recipient. Even then, I could see some reason for it - because it is a benefit one must "apply" for and uses taxpayer dollars. How many more people would get through college if they were not whacked out part of the time?

or a mortgage interest deduction.

Now here we see a big difference in how you think compared to how I do. See - a mortgage interest deduction does not cost the taxpayers - it doesn't "cost" te government - because the money doesn't belong to the government to start with. To you, it would seem it "costs" the government and the taxpayers - but that can only be the case is its the government's money to start with. That just isn't how I see it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So removing roughly 10% (or up to 37%) of those on the welfare rolls who are by definition abusing the system...

See this is where the conversation ends. That statement shows you didn't read the article. And if you did, you choose to ignore the realities of it and the facts that were found when your idea is put into practice in Florida. 108 cases out of 4086. And the same amount of applications as before. 2.6%! That's not 37% or 10% or whatever number you're coming up with from lala land. It's a disbelief of reality. And that's unreasonable.

You can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into. So why bother? Good day and Happy Easter.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Happy Easter.

And a happy Easter to you!

See this is where the conversation ends. That statement shows you didn't read the article.

No, I read it.

And if you did, you choose to ignore the realities of it and the facts that were found when your idea is put into practice in Florida. 108 cases out of 4086. And the same amount of applications as before. 2.6%!

Yes - but that number also discounts the almost 1600 applicants that refused the drug test and thus withdrew their application.
Source: http://www.drugfree.org/uncategorize...o-drug-testing

That's not 37% or 10% or whatever number you're coming up with from lala land.

Its not lala land - its fact. Examine it: Put those back into the equation. Out of a total of 7,028 applications, call it 1600 withdrawn OR failed the test (since less than 1% that took it failed). THAT is fact. And guess what - it equals 22% of the total.

You see - what your article neglects to mention is how many of those who applied refused the test and thus withdrew. That is a significantly statistical portion - nearly 1 out of every 4!

Take a look at just one month's numbers - which show nearly 10% effect
Source: http://www.floridafga.org/2011/09/th...sh-assistance/

It's a disbelief of reality. And that's unreasonable.

No Mookie - citing one source alone that does not account for all the variables, ignoring the HHS memo I included, and then accepting spin without taking the time to consider all the facts - means the "2.6%" claim is false.

We both know that numbers can be manipulated - and in this case the writer of your article got a nice, low number that he wanted by using the numbers he wanted. Did applications drop? No. Did they find lots of drug users? No. Both of those statements in the article were true. However, an absolutely significant portion of applications were stopped when people found out they would get drug tested and that there were repercussions to a failed test -and the article neglected - whether purposely or not - to mention that very important fact. Had it mentioned that - then it would not have been able to support its conclusion. Which is why the conclusion is wrong.

[Wolferz]

If you folks that think this is a good idea, I invite you to take a trip to your local welfare office and look around. Take notice of the people you find there and while you're at it get an application and read it. You will notice, right off the bat, all the warnings in BOLD red letters that it's a crime to defraud the government. By adding a drug test provision the only thing that will occur is... The applicant will find a way around it by either giving up the quest or cessation of the drug use just long enough to pass the whiz quiz. They may even go as far as cheating the test by using urine that isn't theirs or use of an artificial sample.

Those that don't expose themselves to prosecution will likely end up burglarizing your home. Best you stock up on ammo.

My ex-wife applied for and received benefits by using our two children( in my custody) on the application. Imagine my surprise when I get a letter from the state telling me I owed them a lot of money for non-payment of child support. She was ultimately hauled into court and actually told the prosecutor the truth and they didn't do a damn thing to her.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble. Finding it everywhere and applying all the wrong remedies. *Groucho Marx*

Suffice it to say that the governments are going to take your money and give it to someone else no matter what you think about it. So, giving it to the drugged up welfare cases shouldn't be cause for your concern. It keeps them from robbing you in the streets. You should be more concerned with the bigger welfare queens that have big corporate names like Con-Agra, Monsanto, General Motors, Chase bank, etc etc ad nauseum.
I'd wager that they won't be handed a tinkle cup when they show up with their hand out for a hand out.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But it's not only your tax dollars, it's theirs too. I was on unemployment once in my life, and I was happy that I had paid my payroll taxes in the past so that it was there when I needed it. It wasn't voluntary at all...try opting out and you go to jail for tax evasion.

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

Unemployment and welfare are two very different things.

And yes, if in actuality, drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users, then we can stop it. But Florida studies aside, I am skeptical that drug testing welfare applicants would not deter dopeheads and tweakers from applying.

[Armistead]

One thing for sure, those in poverty often turn to drugs for a host of issues, depression, pain from illness or escape from reality. It probably is hard to get proper mental and medical care if poor and on welfare, so they turn to other options. The street is full of alcholics, including many vets, no doubt many use welfare or other govt means to secure money for booze. If anything having welfare would free up what money they may have to buy booze and drugs. The other problem, if many lost welfare, they would probably end up in prison, much more expensive.

Still, I believe as long as our economic models create a two class system, millions will fall into poverty, somewhere along the line we all pay, either in social programs, cost of crime or prison.

Still, we know anything the govt does isn't cost effective and tons of red tape and waste. I think it's to the point of FUBAR and govt containment until the system implodes and chaos breaks out.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Armistead

One thing for sure, those in poverty often turn to drugs for a host of issues, depression, pain from illness or escape from reality. It probably is hard to get proper mental and medical care if poor and on welfare, so they turn to other options. The street is full of alcholics, including many vets, no doubt many use welfare or other govt means to secure money for booze. If anything having welfare would free up what money they may have to buy booze and drugs. The other problem, if many lost welfare, they would probably end up in prison, much more expensive.

Still, I believe as long as our economic models create a two class system, millions will fall into poverty, somewhere along the line we all pay, either in social programs, cost of crime or prison.

Still, we know anything the govt does isn't cost effective and tons of red tape and waste. I think it's to the point of FUBAR and govt containment until the system implodes and chaos breaks out.

I'm sorry to say, that sounds like a ton of excuses. The impoverished turn to drugs to escape their misery? What misery?! How is it that in the United States we have the most ridiculously obese welfare class on the planet, complete with clean running water, big screen TVs, and Xbox 360s?

The cycle of poverty will never end as long as we keep providing excuses, must less accepting them. People make poor decisions, and rationalization is the second strongest human drive. As long as we keep giving an out for those excuses (oh, you're so sad, that's why you do drugs, nothing to do with your terrible propensity for decision making and self-responsibility) people are going to feel less and less inclined to achieve.

Safety nets should exist to help people get back on their feet, and take care of people who aren't able to. They should NOT exist to be a way of life, and to take care of people who CHOOSE not to. Drug use is a choice - whatever brings you to it, doesn't matter. You got there. I'll help you stop, and gladly pay to assist. But I WON'T help you SUSTAIN that habit.