Drug testing for Welfare payments

[J.P.]

There are lots of other ways of using crack. Look up plugging or shelving or any of a multitude of euphemisms that describe how to use crack besides just smoking it.

No need to look it up, I think it's safe to say I'm the resident expert of all things illicit.....and you're technically correct.
I guess I just didn't feel the need to list the multitude of lesser common ROAs, particularly when crack is specifically designed to be smoked & cross the blood/brain barrier more efficiently...and at higher profit margin.

Regardless, abusing either in any way hardly ever leads to anything good.

 

[JD8]

Gotta love all the slippery-slope justifications in this thread. To me it's common sense to be more responsible with government handouts and make sure we aren't giving them to meth addicts, crackheads or even potheads. I hate government handouts in the first place but the abuse of them is just too widescale. I know that when something is suggested to be regulated around here, many will run with it and ignorantly compare it to the Third Reich but the fraud (IMO) is getting beyond ridiculous. Just seen too many people with "habits" that are at least indirectly enabled by gov. aid.

 

[okie_gunslinger]

It irritates me to no end to see people abuse things like welfare and unemployment benefits. But the thing is those people are a very small percentage of the population. Florida is a great example of a get tough on crime bill that was sold to tax payers as a way to save the state money, but when you look at the numbers the only people benefiting from the bill are the drug test companies. With a 2% failure rate and a 2% decline rate the state is now having to pay for 96% of all drug screening for welfare applicants. It's doubtful that the few people that are turned away from the programs will pay for the added bureaucracy and cost of drug screening.

Whats worse of that 2% that are declined there is no way to seperate the heavy drug users, like meth heads, from the recreational ones who only smoke pot.

 

[inactive]

Whats worse of that 2% that are declined there is no way to seperate the heavy drug users, like meth heads, from the recreational ones who only smoke pot.

Wait, there's a difference? Say it ain't so!

 

[RidgeHunter]

Gotta love all the slippery-slope justifications in this thread. To me it's common sense to be more responsible with government handouts and make sure we aren't giving them to meth addicts, crackheads or even potheads. I hate government handouts in the first place but the abuse of them is just too widescale. I know that when something is suggested to be regulated around here, many will run with it and ignorantly compare it to the Third Reich but the fraud (IMO) is getting beyond ridiculous. Just seen too many people with "habits" that are at least indirectly enabled by gov. aid.

It's not a slippery slope argument at all, and it's really not widescale.

As already posted, 2% failed the test if Florida. Oh my heavens.

http://www.news-press.com/article/20110828/NEWS01/108280382/Florida-welfare-drug-tests-largely-clean

It's a silly political ploy and nothing more.

Whats worse of that 2% that are declined there is no way to separate the heavy drug users, like meth heads, from the recreational ones who only smoke pot.

Not to mention marijuana is detectable in urine for a much longer period than most other substances. It's much, much easier for a crankster or a cokehead to pee clean than it is Stoney McStonerson. That's why drug testing employees is so silly. You could bury yourself up in some blow and kill hookers every weekend and still have a very good chance of peeing clean, but if you smoke pot once a week you're likely to fail.

Now RidgeHunter is going to get real prickish and tell it how it is. People talk about knowing abusers and druggies that are on the take. Let's be honest here, most people on assistance either lack good decision making skills or are intentionally lazy and scamming the system. Sorry, just the way it is. Most of them that have kids probably conceived those kids while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Yeah, I'm a jerk for saying it, but you all know it's true.

Yeah, I know hard times can fall on anyone and all that, but if we're going to say "we shouldn't give money to drug users because they are abusing the system" we should just not give money to anyone. You have someone who has a baby while single and unemployed, and we talk about drug use being irresponsible.

The responsible folks ain't on welfare. Welfare goes to people who screw up. It's kind of an all or nothing deal. "only giving assistance to the responsible" is like "only giving wheelchairs to the non-handicapped". If we only want to give welfare to those who don't need it, let's just do away with welfare.

 

[JD8]

Whats worse of that 2% that are declined there is no way to seperate the heavy drug users, like meth heads, from the recreational ones who only smoke pot.

Oh the horror!!! Guess those "recreational users" need to get off their azz and get another job to support their habit.


Does anyone have any REAL numbers as to the cost? FL or otherwise?

 

[inactive]

Do we pose these same requirements to the elderly drawing SSI? I've yet to see anyone pose an answer.

 

[JD8]

It's not a slippery slope argument at all, and it's really not widescale.

Several comments in this thread have eluded to a compromise of liberties have they not?

 

[RidgeHunter]

Oh the horror!!! Guess those "recreational users" need to get off their azz and get another job to support their habit.

Again, by that logic we should just not give welfare to anyone. Resposible, motivated people with good decision making skills aren't on fawking welfare in the first place. By design, welfare is for people who screw up and can't get their shitt together for whatever reason.

Does anyone have any REAL numbers as to the cost? FL or otherwise?

Sure.

DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test out of his or her own pocket and then the state reimburses him if they test comes back negative.

Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

It damn sure isn't ever going to "save a ton of money". It may not cost a ton, but it's not going to save anything.


http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html

Several comments in this thread have eluded to a compromise of liberties have they not?

Knowing the history of drug prohibition in America from the early 20th century to present day, I would not call it fallacious. Subjective I guess.

 

[EFsDad]

Do we pose these same requirements to the elderly drawing SSI? I've yet to see anyone pose an answer.

Red Herring, in that most* people pay into the SSI system and are drawing back their contributions.

*(I really don't know this to be a fact)