Drug testing for Welfare payments

[SMS]

It's time we use some common sense here. This idea will just add yet another layer of government bureaucracy that we will have to foot the bill to sustain. It's impossible for me to believe we would save any amount of money by catching these people when you factor in the cost of the tests.

It's not really that expensive.

The tests are cheap ($3 for a 10 panel dip stick plus whatever for the admin handling), and the testee can pay the cost...it's done every day for DOC, private probation, pre trial release and community sentencing clients all over the country. There are plenty of private testing facilities that do this regularly, all they need is an address to send the test results too.

What will make it expensive is the multiple layers of red tape and bullsh#t that we like to heap on things instead of keeping it simple.

No clean drug test result on file, no money. Done.

 

[Hobbes]

Drug users shouldn't be raising children. Take the kids and the money away. Easy fix.

You would have the state take custody of the children if a parent tested positive for pot?

 

[inactive]

You keep saying tax return I read the article and I seen nothing about tax return
it says welfare recipients who are trading mony off there cards for cash and such !
And anyway if I have to take one at work what is wrong with someone on the welfare system taking one ? If I can loose my job what is wrong with them losing there benifits
if they are using ! I see nothing wrong with it other than the children are the ones who will be hurt that is the only draw back I see with deal !

1) You know that the 1040 is the largest welfare application in the country right? And it's just a way to hand out cash, in a lump sum no less. The article mentions one form of welfare, but why should we stop there?

2) Many employers in Oklahoma or elsewhere do not administer drug testing.

 

[ExtremistPullup]

How about mandatory drug testing for government backed student loans.
Sounds like a waist of time since there is a supreme court ruling that will over turn it. Chandler v. Miller

 

[inactive]

It's time we use some common sense here. This idea will just add yet another layer of government bureaucracy(...)

These are the wisest words in this entire thread. Anyone who thinks giving the government increased control over their own or anyone else's lives, be it those in need or otherwise, needs to reexamine their ideas of liberty, conservatism, and limited government.

 

[tschwarz]

Three dollars doesn't sound like much and you're right about having existing infrastructure; however, it is not quite that cut and dry simple. In 09/2010 there were approx. 414,000 individuals in Oklahoma participating in the SNAP program. I don't think the existing infrastructure could support adding anywhere near that number of people - even on a random basis. So you have your three dollars per test, plus the cost of paying for the new govt workers that would be needed just to push paper administrating the program, plus paying the additional staff to take the samples, plus an army of lawyers defending the program, etc. It adds up.

 

[Mgarza_a]

These are the wisest words in this entire thread. Anyone who thinks giving the government increased control over their own or anyone else's lives, be it those in need or otherwise, needs to reexamine their ideas of liberty, conservatism, and limited government.

Just a quick question to understand your position... Would you be as opposed to another layer of bureaucracy if the welfare was contingient upon government subsidized training or college instead of drug testing?

 

[SMS]

These are the wisest words in this entire thread. Anyone who thinks giving the government increased control over their own or anyone else's lives, be it those in need or otherwise, needs to reexamine their ideas of liberty, conservatism, and limited government.

I'd agree...provided they just cut the whole program and stopped taking money from one class to give it to another. But since they won't ever stop doing that, I want my "investment" protected (tongue in cheek)....even if it means adding to the bureaucracy.

Look at it as another job creation initiative. My wife is partially in the drug testing business....she said she could do it for as cheap as $7 a pop if she had such a large pool of customers. Another woman she works with has infrastrucure in multiple Oklahoma counties...she could rapidly expand her private business, hire more people and execute the testing for such a program almost instantly. The only additional burden on the State would be adding a sheet of paper to the recipient's case file.

More jobs, and less taxpayer money spent....instead of our usual formula of throwing away money in the name of job creation.

 

[soonersfan]

What about the children? It's always about the children. I've got news for you, the children of a drug abusing welfare recipient are not benefiting from the welfare. If we would offer sterilization in return for extended benefits, that would probably do more to help the children.

I really don't have an opinion yet on this drug testing law. I don't believe in doing it based on principle but if it saves us money I am not opposed to it. I feel like we should let it ride for an extended period in the states where it already exist to see what, if any benefit there really is. There is no need to be in a rush to copy someone else's mistake, if it turns out to be a mistake.

There are so many ways to improve the welfare system it is ridiculous. To me the easiest is to get rid of food stamps. These are overpaid which is why most people with them can eat better than the people who work to pay for them. Use a system like Wic that allows for staples and foods that are healthy for "the kids" and does not cover cheetos and soda. Food stamps are also a form a currency that can quickly be converted to cash which can be used to buy drugs. If you remove the source, people might have to get a job to pay for their drugs.

Politicians always want to ignore the real problem because fixing it is too overwhelming or too unpopular. So they come up with laws like this to treat the symptoms of a bigger issue. I'm glad someone is trying to do something about the problem that is welfare but I am not sure this is the way to do it just yet.

 

[inactive]

Just a quick question to understand your position... Would you be as opposed to another layer of bureaucracy if the welfare was contingient upon government subsidized training or college instead of drug testing?

No, not really. I believe that would result in training a whole bunch of people that wouldn't work anyway. They would train enough to keep receiving the welfare. Adding more layers to the onion won't resolve anything.


My other concern is why we are targeting simply one form of welfare. Should students who receive student loan, or scholarship tuition waivers be tested? Those on Soonercare? People receiving a net gain refund on their tax return? How about retirees drawing SSI? I suspect because it's simply another PR stunt by our politicians.