Texas advances bill to require drug screening for welfare

[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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

words

All irrelevant anyways, as there was no evidence of a crime being committed and no probable cause for a search.

Here's a fun one. Guess who said: "there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a `concrete danger' that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use."

Fourth Amendment rights are a wonderful thing. Shame that so many people want to throw them away.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

All irrelevant anyways, as there was no evidence of a crime being committed and no probable cause for a search.

So now your back to the whole "search and seizure" argument. Well, when you can't argue the facts, you have to change the discussion. OK - but I already addressed it and you didn't have a rebuttal. So once again - where is the evidence of a crime being committed or the probable cause that allows the government to require drug screening in all of its applicants for employment?

Have you come up with an answer for that one yet?

Fourth Amendment rights are a wonderful thing.

We agree on that.

Shame that so many people want to throw them away.

No - its a shame people want to think their "right" to use illegal drugs and then defraud the government of the money paid by those of us that work is ok. It's not. So try again.

[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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Wolferz...

Welfare - whether corporate or individual - is money taken from the working citizen and given to someone else. Your right about that. And your right its abused either way. The thing is, its government's fault for creating a system that is so ripe for abuse - and you have to start somewhere. The reason you start with drug users vs "big corp" is simple - big corp actually does something useful in society.

Business employs people, welfare drug users? Not so much.

Any questions?

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Wolferz...

Welfare - whether corporate or individual - is money taken from the working citizen and given to someone else. Your right about that. And your right its abused either way. The thing is, its government's fault for creating a system that is so ripe for abuse - and you have to start somewhere. The reason you start with drug users vs "big corp" is simple - big corp actually does something useful in society.

Business employs people, welfare drug users? Not so much.

Any questions?

If we dig down to the bare bones we find that money is nothing more than a fantasy construct. Is there anything of value that actually backs it anymore? The answer is no. It's just Fiat money. Figures stored in a computer. The digits that are removed from your pay go for only one thing... paying the interest on the money that the government borrows to pay its' bills and run its' programs. Basically it's a big Ponzi scheme with an artificial deficit thrown in to create talking points for politicians to create fear among the populace.
Eventually it will collapse on itself.
My suggestion would be... give the poor their welfare fiat but not with a noose attached to it. If the poor are poor because they chose substance abuse, they need more than the pittance doled out by their state welfare office. Requiring a drug test to get aid smacks of tyranny where you are considered guilty until you prove your innocence and that isn't right by any stretch of the imagination. This will lead to further erosion of peoples' rights to self determination.
The real abusers of these programs don't spend that money on drugs to sell or imbibe. They do blatantly stupid things like a couple I saw in Michigan doing their grocery shopping in a convenience store. Loaded a cart, paid for it with food stamps and went to the parking lot and loaded everything into a new Cadillac. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over

As for the corporate welfare queens, sure they do something constructive with the money... like paying their stock holders huge dividends and paying their CEO's huge salaries and bonuses. Is that where you want your money going? To make the rich a little richer?
If Welfare is such a thorn in the side, just do away with it altogether. Grind the poor into the mud or make them slaves by tossing them into the workhouse again. I certainly hope that you never find yourself a down on your luck victim of a financial catastrophe.