What the %&#$ is Wrong?
Making Drug Tests Required to be on Welfare?
This facebook group caught my eye as friends on both sides of the aisle were joining it, so I joined it as well to see some point of views on the topic.
It sounds like a good idea doesn’t it? On the surface, yeah, it could sound like a good idea. But when I thought about it more, it doesn’t seem like that good of an idea after all. Think of all of the checks and balances that would need to be put into place to try and save a little money.
One of the biggest arguments in the group is, “I needed to pass a drug test to get my job, why can’t they get tested for getting on welfare?” Cost would be the simple reason. When an employer hires someone and puts them through a drug test, they pay for that cost of the hospital doing that service for them. If a system would be put in place for drug testing welfare recipients, the government would have to pick up the tab on millions of tests to be done, which would in turn increase the costs of the welfare system as a whole.
You are probably thinking, why wouldn’t it decrease the costs? This could be debated, but my belief is that there are more non-drug using people that need the welfare system when they fall on bad times than there are people on drugs that fall onto the system. In the end, we would be paying more for testing, than the people that are denied would save in spending.
Now, what would happen to those denied welfare due to them using drugs? How would they make a living? They would most likely go to a life of crime, drug dealing, prostitution, etc. to try and make ends meet. This would also cost our tax payers more money to cover the costs of these citizens. We are not just covering their welfare now, but we are covering the costs of them being processed through the courts and then put into the prison system.
What about legal drug abuse? There are some people that use the system and abuse the money that they get on legal drugs such as nicotine and alcohol instead of feeding their kids. How would this idea govern that?
What about corporate welfare? How would this idea be extended to that area?
All in all, this will never be more than just an idea the more you think about it, and will never make it through any congress or senate.
Unfortunately, the group on Facebook supporting this has devolved from what sounded to be a good idea on the surface to something that is bringing out the hate and racism in droves.
The current system is being abused, yes… but that is the nature of the beast. If there is a system, someone out there will abuse it. This system just happens to carry a stereotype with it where people are looked down on as a result of their misfortune. It all comes down to how you enforce regulations on how to make sure that the people that need it, receive it.
There are ways to deal with people who are abusing the system, turn them in. http://www.ucowf.org/
Of course there are alternative groups out there we well, such as this one.
Stand for what you believe in, look into the issues and don’t blindly follow them.
SaumZ
| Print article | This entry was posted by SaumZ on January 26, 2010 at 10:12 am, and is filed under Politics. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 1 month ago
Great thoughts on the subject. It’s not as cut and dry of an issue as people think. And just because almost 1 million people have joined a fan page and want to do this does not make it a good idea.
about 1 month ago
i don’t necessarily think this is a good idea, but your argument that testing would cost more than the system would save by disqualifying habitual drug users is ridiculous.
i have lived in low-income neighborhoods and done volunteer work with low and moderate income people, and without question the majority of adults receiving welfare are habitual drug users of one sort or another. maybe it’s not 90%, but it’s easily 60%.
to me, the difficult question comes in how the children of such a person would be treated. many welfare recipients have 3 or more children, and these children have a rough life as it is. should they go without food because their mother habitually smokes pot, or crack, or whatever. not so much.
if there were an easy answer here, the government would have stumbled across it by now. it’s truly a shame that millions and millions abuse the welfare system and reproduce simply to increase their eligibility for benefits. this sort of reverse darwinism harms our culture and society, and those that make responsible choices about reproduction may be forced to defer starting a family in part because of the taxes withheld to pay for these programs.
what can you do?
about 1 month ago
I think a lot of the folks there know the err of their thoughts but don’t want to admit it when faced with it. Bunch of classist racist blowhards.
about 1 month ago
thank you for this informative blog.
about 1 month ago
This is my counter group to this nonsense. Join if you’re on facebook.
about 1 month ago
@David
I would like to hear your perspective on the testing methods. Would it be tested once upon entering the program? Would it be a test every time someone gets a check? Would it be a hair test or urine test?
You know a lot of drugs out there do not last in your body more than a week with a urine test.* The only one that lasts up to a month is Marijuana, due to it staying in the fatty cells in your body.
That would mean for effective results, a hair test would have to be done. Hair tests do cost far more than urine tests as well.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_test
about 1 month ago
I am a 100% supporter of drug testing for welfare. Not to gear toward one race, sex, age, or financial history. But to eliminate or help control the amount of funding that is going towards habitual drug users. If they were denied benfits for not passing their random drug test then that money will cover the cost of the testing. And as for their children. In a drug filled home they are more than likely not getting the care they need so it may be beneficial to end up in a foster home.
about 1 month ago
Guys, welfare is not parole. Parole is not welfare. You cannot take a person’s 14th amendment rights away just because they are impoverished. You may not like it, but that’s fact.
This gets down to the matter of conservatives wanting to control the behavior of those they deem “beneath them”, and nothing else.
You want to expose welfare abuse, why dig into corporate welfare recipients? There are far more injustices there than you’ll find in low-income neighborhoods.
This is ignorance, and people shouldn’t stand for it.
about 1 month ago
Ammendment rights? Hrmm.. that may hold some wait if we as a country were a sovereign nation. But that just simply isn’t the case anymore. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94331
Obama has pissed on our constitution.
about 1 month ago
Jack Levitt, I’m not even going to bother responding to such an imbecilic statement if you can’t even be bothered to learn to spell “amendment” or “WEIGHT”. Or learn the definition of “sovereign”. Or read anything that isn’t completely funded by right-wing interest. Show me the same article written by an actual journalist and then maybe we can talk. Or better yet, take a political science course and learn to think for yourself about these topics.
Your response is ridiculous and untrue. And quoting “news sources” that are simply internet blogs written by conspiracy theorists is what holds no “WEIGHT”.
Go back to English class, please.
about 1 month ago
Food for thought , Ms. Arrogant. This is the internet. Nobody cares about you grammar Nazi types. Heil Spell-check! 3rd Webster! and all that non-sense. Oh, and you responded to that statement, so you just contradicted yourself. Stop pretending you’re better than everyone else , because guess what, you’re not.
about 1 month ago
Well now.. look what we have here….
1) Not caring about education? check
2) Bashing Obama for no real reason? check
3) Linking to the doldrums of the right wing blogosphere? check
Looks like we have ourselves a grade A teabagger. Let me guess… you’re from the bible belt?
about 1 month ago
Ok people….
You can argue with a little more civility than this.
Mr. Levitt, I do have to agree with Kelli that proper grammar only makes you seem more credible, intelligent, and it makes people give your argument that much more respect.
I know I am not the best at spelling and grammar, but at least I make an effort.
about 1 month ago
The point I was trying to make, Mr. Levitt, is that arguing with a brick wall (or somebody with the debate skills of one) is futile.
And your use of the term “nazi” when attacking me for pointing out your inability to follow simple writing rules only goes to point out just how blind to the nuances of the human condition you must be. Any work I do to argue my point will likely be lost on you. So I’m not bothering further.