The smartest thing out of the US Government in...

iFlip

iFlip

Active member
Wow, finally a beathe of fresh air! Is it possible? Our government is moving toward doing something that borders on genius. Wow!

"Conservatives who say welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test to receive government assistance have momentum on their side.

The issue has come up in the Republican presidential campaign, with front-runner Mitt Romney saying it's an 'excellent idea.'"

This is just such a good idea on so many levels. The poor are a major drain on our country, and it is our country's responsibility to aid them. No one can be allowed to starve. Yet it is these people, the poor, who have the greatest dependency upon drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. Test them for drugs, test them for alcohol, test them for nicotine levels. If they need the government's handouts, the government should be allowed to dictate to a degree how this money is spent.

Welfare is in place to provide a place to live and food to eat. The people who receive it should not be enjoying drugs and cigarettes. A pack of cigarettes costs as much as a meal for a family. If they can afford the cigarettes, clearly they do not need Welfare. "'If you can afford to buy drugs, and use drugs, you don't need" welfare, said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, who is sponsoring a bill this session."

http://news.yahoo.com/plans-drug-test-welfare-recipients-momentum-220037043.html

I would like to take this a step further. Cigarettes have been proven without a doubt to lead to health complications. Prisoners are allowed to smoke. Why? In prison people are wards of the state. As such we have to provide health care for them. Allowing these convicted felons the luxury of smoking can end up costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per inmate. Prison is not meant to be nice.

Clearly we cannot take cigarettes away from prisoners all at once. There would be massive riots. How about instead we institute a policy that no person entering the penal system from X date onward is allowed to smoke? This would make prison a further deterrent. Win-win.
 
I disagree with this entirely. Just look at NS, every second thread in NSG is 'I smoked this..', 'I took that...' (admittedly a lot of them are bullshit) and I wouldn't imagine many of us are on welfare.

Everybody uses government/taxpayer resources in some shape or form regardless of income. If you're going to drug test the people on welfare you should drug test the road/healthcare/school users not to mention people who benefit from other community services such as police and defence.
 
Fucking stupid. Junkies and methheads have kids, too. Totally innocent kids that need to eat. And sorry, our foster care system and social services systems just aren't up to par enough to deal with this.

Now, tune that shit up and actually make them effective, and I'm with ya.

 
Middle to upper class caucasian 13-18 year olds who engage in freestyle skiing represent an exceedingly small sample size of America. Believe it or not, most of these kids who post on here about smoking weed will outgrow the habit within 5-10 years. One could also make the argument that weed is not a drug, and I believe you will agree that most NSers do not use meth or other hard drugs (even if a few loudly claim it).

You also need to draw the distinction between priveleges and rights. We all have a right to education and living in safety (police). Welfare is given to address specific issues, mainly being able to care for oneself and one's family.
 
ARe you kidding me? How can you compare our community of skiers to the situation at hand? The point of this article wasn't to say if your poor your going to do drugs, or only poor people do drugs... The point was that there is a strong correlation with substance abuse and poverty, and if we tax payers are paying for them to blow our money on useless shit than it obviously is a drain on society and we should try to mitigate it.
 
NS was just an example. I would be very surprised if drug abuse rates weren't relatively similar across all demographics. Do people not have a right to freedom of choice?

Kicking people off welfare for drug related offences, sure. Subjecting everyone who needs a bit of help to invasive medical tests? no thanks.
 
They did this in Florida, and only about 3% of welfare recipients tested positive to drugs. It ended up costing the state over $100,000 to do the tests, money that could've been used for, oh say, i don't know, maybe welfare... Upon the proposal for a bill which would introduce the same drug tests for state politicians, that bill was instantly shuttered.

Yes, the welfare system needs to be reformed. It needs to be reformed to make more sense. We pay an effective tax rate close to that of Germany or Sweden, yet get nothing back comparatively.

I hate to say it, but please take your non-backed conservative arguments elsewhere.
 
But roads, healthcare and school is something that everyone should be entitled to. Not everyone needs welfare, and you certainly shouldn't be entitled to it if you're using it to buy cigs and booze...
 
Not sure why you are arguing about that point though... Like okay he may mispoken and said "greatest", but the severity of that dependence with relation to other social demographics is not what is at question. Who cares if lets say rich people have a higher rate of substance or abuse or whatever, we don't pay for rich peoples drugs. However people on well fare we do pay for, and since there is a correlation this actual could be a good idea.

I don't really care what people blow their money on, as long as they earn it themselves. But when you take the governments money (aka ours) and blow it on useless shit is not cool and a huge drain.

 
Now if they have people work to get welfare, anything sweep the sidewalks, then i will think the government has done a good job. And yes i understand not everyone can work but this will cut down the amount of people doing nothing for free money and give incentive to find a real job. Even if your in a wheelchair or mentally handicapped... have them crochet socks to donate to homeless shelters i dont care just anything thats slightly productive is more than nothing.
 
Maybe you don't directly, but the excess burden it puts on healthcare services, the war on drugs and losses in productivity you certainly do. Or the coke head at the investment bank who gambles with a pension fund resulting in a government bail-out. Drug abuse costs tax payers money, no matter how rich the abuser is.
 
Yes, there was personal opinion in what I posted. I could have just copied and pasted the article, but what would be the point in that? I truly believed that the poor had the greatest rate of substance abuse. Your comments made me go looking for proof, a statistic to cite. I educated myself on this, and apparently I was wrong. Thank you for teaching me something. Regardless though, the poor do tend to engage in hard drug use. By providing them Welfare we are enabling this habit. They no longer have to choose between food and meth. They are not forced to get off meth and get a job. I hope you can agree that when presented with losing Welfare or giving up drug usage, many people would choose to get clean. By doing so they would be more likely to clean up other aspects of their lives and even get a job. Will this work for everyone? Of course not. There would be a buy-in period, with results seen progressively.
 
I agree with you there iFlip. I just don't believe that you should subject the poor to these measures when the problem is just as prevelant and costly amongst the rich. But hey, that doesn't make me right.. just my opinion.
 
Yes thanks for point out the obvious. But for all those burdens you just mentioned you have a solution for, but this one potentially does so why bash it?
 
How? It is a government program that you willingly want to be, the government should then be able to put feasible regulations that they seem fit to improve its efficiency. No one is making x apply for welfare, it is their choice, ergo any regulations cannot be discriminatory.
 
I don't think many want to be on welfare. need welfare? yes. You're saying to poor people that you don't trust them to make their own decisions. It's your choice to live in the US, so are you saying that any regulations made by the US govt. cannot be discriminatory?
 
The laws and regulations may not be overtly discriminatory but the outcomes very often are. This is when you get into an equal vs fair debate. In this instance, while white people make up the majority of welfare recipients, black people have the highest per capita welfare use by far. Drug use is reported to be higher among whites than black people, but because more black people per capita are on welfare it will affect black people at a higher percent. The law may be fair, but the outcomes of the law may not be equal.
 
Dude the way I see it, is that it's not unconstitutional for employers to make you submit to drug tests if it says so in your contract. I don't see why this same theory cannot be applied to the welfare program, imagine the program is just a job and you get free money and don't actually have to work, but in order to get the job you have to meet certain requirements and one of those is a drug test. I don't see how this discriminatory.

 
yeah I guess I just don't see welfare as 'free money' or anything resembling a job. But yeah, that's my opinion and yours is different and that's a good thing. At least there appears to be some level of debate on issues going on the US at the moment. In my country at the moment there is a leadership spill pretty much because two people from the same party hate each other. Neither is offering a different policy or opinion on anything. Such a joke.
 
There have been some excellent points made by Culla and Bomber, as well as others. People sign up for Welfare, just as people sign up for the military. One must interview and meet requirements for both. Both pay you. Why not put reasonable requirements in place for Welfare? Asking people to not engage in drug use is hardly infringing upon their rights or asking something unreasonable of them. Welfare is a program of the US government, and drug laws are a product of the government as well. If one wants one, why shouldn't one have to follow the other?
 
Only watched the first 4 minutes of the video. Not sure why that guy was getting butt hurt about taking a drug test. I had to get drug tested for multiple jobs I have held, never did I feel discriminated against in of those situations. I just don't see how it is different, I bet you that guy would be piss in a cup in a heart beat to get first accounting job, but nope when he needs to get free money from the government it is blasphemy.

 
i feel as though you have a very skewed version of the general poor. the VAST, VAST majority are just trying to make ends meet, and really are working to be better off. Would you enjoy being poor? why would these people?

the issue (and the reason the majority of people view the poor the way you do) is media exposure. you NEVER hear about Bob who is working at mcdonalds, making minimum wage to feed his kid, but constantly hear about drug busts, violence and horrible deeds, all done by poor people. in reality, the "bad" poor make up only a tiny fraction of the majority.

i know this because of a couple books i've read on the subject.

hope i educated one or two.

have nice day.
 
Well just to add some spice to the discussion, I would be lying if I said I didn't personally know 4 people who choose to collect unemployment so they can buy weed and a ski pass every year. They spend their life on others couches, and if you pay taxes....you are buying that weed for them.
 
people that are coasting off the governments money is really at the mercy of the government. welfare is not "a bit of help".
 
What makes far more sense is to have people have their situations re-assessed on a regular basis.

I see you now have a full-time job and are making regular payments on a car and a house. You obviously don't need welfare. People double-dipping and receiving welfare benefits while being employed in a good job is a lot more common than drug addicts on welfare to get money for drugs.
 
the problem with this issue is that it implies that nearly all people getting welfare have drug issues.

that is not true.

of course the government has the right to choose who they give money. but dont be surprised when the eventual savings of this system is not as big as you might have thought, because welfare is more often than not doing its job in providing a safety net for people who ended up in bad situations without their fault.

not all poor people are lazy crackheads.
 
I'd like to ask you to back up those statistics, and please dont be ignorant and lable things as "non-backed conservative", and i think this bill is just trying to make sure tax dollars are going to good use and not to buying drugs.
 
thank you, but i just have one theory, wellfair is a choice, so if you knew you had to take a drug test to receive it and you knew you would not pass, most wouldnt even try to aply for it. I'd like to see a stat of how many were on wellfair before the bill and how many afterwards.
 
The assumptions underlying this proposal are simply false. The concept is that all poor people are lazy crackheads and that discriminating against those who abuse drugs would save money. This has been empirically disproven in Florida where only 2% of welfare recipients actually failed their drug tests and the program actually ended up costing the taxpayers of Florida to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.

The ethical impacts of this type of legislation are highly significant. The proposal, in effect, denies welfare necessary for survival for thousands of people. This would include people who have never touched drugs in their life, the applicant's dependents. There is something deeply morally wrong with punishing someone who has committed no crime and has no voice in the matter. Additionally, this proposal only furthers false assumptions about drug use, like "People are choosing drugs over their children." Someone with a drug addiction no longer has the same free will and power of choice as you and I. On the extreme end, someone heavily addicted to drugs can literally not survive without them. We recently had a woman die in prison here in Utah after she was not given the proper medical attention she needed to overcome her heroin addiction. Drug addiction is not a matter of choice; it's a legitimate medical condition. We should not be attempting to combat drug abuse by discriminating against and punishing drug users; 40 years of the 'War on Drugs' have shown that it gets us nowhere. Instead, we should focus on reducing rates of drug abuse and mitigating its effects through institutions like Methadone clinics and needle exchange programs.

Finally, this proposal would have the impact of codifying and legally legitimizing invasive drug testing for government institutions. Oh you want federal student aid? Pass this drug test. You want a federal housing grant? Pass this drug test. You want Medicare? Pass this drug test. You want social security? Pass this drug test. You want to go to court? Pass this drug test. You want to run for office? Pass this drug test. You want to vote?

Pass this drug test.
 
at one point or another, they willingly chose to start doing drugs and they knew what they were getting themselves into.

And sorry, but if I can't make money because I do drugs, you can't take it because you do.

The smarter thing to do would be extensively limit what they can buy with welfare money/food stamps and so on. No more buying $100 worth of candy and snacks on the first of the month.
 
legit argument. i am pretty sure that someone who would definitely NOT pass would kind of fear legal consequences or so

cant provide that stat though, lol
 
You're overgeneralizing. With prescription drugs being the second most abused class of drugs in the US, a very significant amount of addicts start by using drugs legally and for medical reasons. Everyone knows somebody who started using painkillers which were prescribed by a doctor and eventually fell into addiction to them, and if you don't, you're lucky and pray it doesn't happen to someone you know. For the rest, they didn't choose to get addicted to drugs and in a lot of cases were unaware of the potential addictive properties. The addicts you're characterizing represent a very small portion of those with this devastating medical condition.

And they're not receiving welfare because they do drugs, they're receiving it in spite of drug abuse. For someone who is legitimately attempting to get off drugs, denying them the necessities of life isn't going to make it any easier. This realization solidifies the assumptions and intentions which underlie the debate: The original intention of this proposal isn't to reduce rates of drug abuse, as other methods have been proven far superior, it's to further the discrimination against the impoverished who the proposers see as an inferior class of people unfit to live and receive taxpayer money.
 
The only problem with this is...if you had to administer a drug test for those on welfare, you have to hire countless amounts of federal employees to give the drug tests. Look at how many people are on welfare, and EVERY SINGLE ONE would need a drug test...also, if they had to take a test every month...would be kidna costly if u ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top