Welfare Drug Testing: Shego Gets Political?

[Shegokigo]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-drug-testing-poor-could-unconstitutional-081205581.html

Normally I don't post anywhere near these threads/forums but this one was interesting. My ex's brother's family used to be on welfare in TX and I spent some time seeing the "system" first hand. I can say 150% that this needs to be established ASAP throughout the entire US. I don't see a downside AT ALL.

This just makes sense in every way. Thoughts?

 

[Azurephoenix]

Can we have this in Canada too?

 

[Dave]

You are for drug testing the poor before they can get on welfare or government assistance? Am I reading that right?

 

[Tress]

You are for drug testing the poor before they can get on welfare or government assistance? Am I reading that right?

I read it as sarcasm. I think she's being facetious.

 

[Shegokigo]

I am FOR it.

Why not? It comes at NO cost to them if they pass the test.
The only ones that this would affect are drug users attempting to use Welfare to support their habit and stay unemployed.

 

[Chibibar]

I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[Shegokigo]

Some of the complaints say it's unconstitutional. Applying for Welfare is not mandatory, it's a choice. Therefore you're also making the choice to submit to the test.

Seriously, the only argument against it is someone who's using illegal narcotics. If you can afford that kind of luxury, you don't have any business getting Food Stamps/Free Medical.

 

[Shakey]

The last paragraph in the article says it best. Test everyone that receives a government check, or don't test anyone.

If Florida and other states are really concerned about drug use, they should adopt stricter laws and better enforcement policies aimed at the whole population, not just the most vulnerable. But these laws are not really about drug use. They are about, in these difficult economic times, making things a little harder for the poor.

Still, the problem comes in when they expect people who are going to the government for assistance because they have no money, to pay for a test up front which they can't afford. It doesn't matter if they get reimbursed, they still have to come up with the money to apply.

 

[Dave]

Well well. We disagree. In fact, I think it's unconscionable. While I understand you have empirical knowledge of someone who gamed the system, I have empirical knowledge of many others - myself included - who used the system when they needed it. What you seem to be forgetting is that this is feel-good legislation that targets those who game the system on purpose as if they are in the majority and run rampant whereas I would assert that they are the vast minority. But what I think is really bad is the splash damage associated. So a person gets drug tested and has their welfare, food stamps, whatever taken away or denied; what did their kids do to deserve to live on the street or go hungry? And if a 2-parent household, what happens if only one parent fails the test? Seems to be to be a nuclear option when it is not called for.

I'm frankly shocked that this is your view.

 

[Shegokigo]

They're not that expensive. It'd be a very small percentage that wouldn't be able to temporarily put up for the test. I'm VERY sure they'd have a secondary application to assist in paying for the test.

Think about the pre-test filtering. All the people who wouldn't even bother applying for Welfare at all since they know they'd fail the test anyway. If someone truly couldn't afford to pay for the test, but qualified for assistance, I'm VERY sure there'd be a plan in place to assist them with paying for the test. If they failed, well then they'd owe. More than fair.

Well well. We disagree. In fact, I think it's unconscionable. While I understand you have empirical knowledge of someone who gamed the system, I have empirical knowledge of many others - myself included - who used the system when they needed it. What you seem to be forgetting is that this is feel-good legislation that targets those who game the system on purpose as if they are in the majority and run rampant whereas I would assert that they are the vast minority. But what I think is really bad is the splash damage associated. So a person gets drug tested and has their welfare, food stamps, whatever taken away or denied; what did their kids do to deserve to live on the street or go hungry? And if a 2-parent household, what happens if only one parent fails the test? Seems to be to be a nuclear option when it is not called for.

I'm frankly shocked that this is your view.

If you're failing the tests, you have no business on Welfare. Use the money/income you're spending on drugs to keep your family fed/housed. I don't see your point AT ALL.

 

[Shakey]

So, the state is going to pay for all these drug tests, pay for a new program to help fund those that can't afford it, and pay for lawyer costs to defend the law and any appeals that people bring up? I seriously doubt the state will see any savings from this. All it's doing is making it harder for people to get the help they need.

 

[Tress]

Drug-testing laws are often touted as a way of saving tax dollars, but the facts are once again not quite as presented. Idaho recently commissioned a study of the likely financial impact of drug testing its welfare applicants. The study found that the costs were likely to exceed any money saved.

That happens to be Florida's experience so far. A Florida television station, WFTV, reported that of the first 40 applicants tested, only two came up positive, and one of those was appealing. The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits to the two applicants, but it had to pay $1,140 to the applicants who tested negative. The state will also have to spend considerably more to defend the policy in court.

So not only does it serve to further stigmatize welfare recipients, and not only is unconstitutional, but it costs more money than it would save. It would be even worse if your "pre-test filtering" plan works and only people who are drug free apply. Now we're not only paying them welfare, but we pay for useless drug tests they take as well.

This is not a good plan.

 

[Krisken]

Drug testing is horrendously expensive to do on a massive scale. I'm kinda with Dave on this. This is kinda similar to all the voting laws which have recently been passed. From ACLU:

• 
  
  • The average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person tested,[8] not including the costs of hiring personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality of results and to run confirmatory tests to guard against false positives resulting from passive drug exposure, cross-identification with legal, prescription drugs such as codeine and legal substances such as poppy seeds.
  • Another way to measure the cost is by counting what it costs to “catch” each drug user. Drug testing is not used by many private employers because of the exorbitant cost of catching each person who tests positive. One electronics manufacturer, for example, estimated that the cost of finding each person who tested positive was $20,000, since after testing 10,000 employees, only 49 tested positive. A congressional committee also estimated that the cost of each positive drug test of government employees was $77,000, because the positive rate was only 0.5%.[9]

• Mandatory drug testing is an ineffective means to uncover drug abuse.
  
  
  • An Oklahoma study found that a questionnaire was able to accurately detect 94 out of 100 drug abusers. The questionnaire was also useful in detecting alcohol abusers, something drug tests fail to accomplish.[10]
  • Certain counties in Oregon experimented with drug testing on some welfare recipients, but the process was halted when it was found that drug testing was less effective in identifying drug abuse than less invasive, cheaper methods.[11]
  • Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse – the most commonly abused substance among Americans – and are most likely to detect marijuana use since the active ingredient in marijuana stays in the body’s system longer than any other illicit substance. Therefore, drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days.[12]
  • Many states have rejected the random drug testing of welfare recipients as impractical and fiscally unjustifiable.
    
    
    
    • For example, New York and Maryland each considered a program to randomly drug test those receiving welfare, but abandoned the plan as not cost-effective, given that urinalysis is almost exclusively a barometer of marijuana use and that welfare recipients are required to undergo regular supervision, allowing for effective monitoring absent the cost and intrusion of mandatory drug testing.[13]
    • Louisiana passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare recipients. However, a task force set up to implement the law found more limited drug testing of individuals identified by a questionnaire to be more cost-effective than mandatory drug testing.[14]
    • Alabama decided against drug testing because it found that focusing on job training programs was a more effective method of moving individuals off of welfare.[15]

• • This is just how it would be fiscally irresponsible.

 

[Shegokigo]

It does not cost anywhere near as much as it would save. The numbers are obvious. The amount of benefit someone would collect over a year vs the cost of a drug test are huge differences. Unconstitutional how? It's an OPTIONAL program by the government you don't HAVE to take.

Pay for Lawyers for appeals? Are you serious? "I got denied welfare for failing a drug test, I'm gonna sue" that'd be hilarious to hear in court.

 

[Krisken]

i have no counter point to 'because i said so".

 

[Shegokigo]

I didn't see your post. My reply was to the ones above yours.

I'm more than sure the costs to a goverment run drug testing on a large scale would alot lower than the costs that are currently being assumed by comparison to large companies etc.

 

[Dave]

My point is that those who use drugs - whether they paid for them or not!! - would automatically be stricken from the roles of public assistance, but so would their kids or dependents. I truly see where wanting to get those who are gaming the system off the system, but this way of doing it is a huge overreaction to the actual problem, and is more a tool of the right to attempt to disenfranchise the poor rather than to show any level of fiscal responsibility. You are a very smart woman, Shego. Which is why I find it hard to believe that you are swallowing the koolaid the right is pushing as a diversionary tactic.
Added at: 13:43

I didn't see your post. My reply was to the ones above yours.

I'm more than sure the costs to a goverment run drug testing on a large scale would alot lower than the costs that are currently being assumed by comparison to large companies etc.

Eh? When does the government do anything cheaper than the private sector?

 

[Krisken]

My point is that those who use drugs - whether they paid for them or not!! - would automatically be stricken from the roles of public assistance, but so would their kids or dependents. I truly see where wanting to get those who are gaming the system off the system, but this way of doing it is a huge overreaction to the actual problem, and is more a tool of the right to attempt to disenfranchise the poor rather than to show any level of fiscal responsibility. You are a very smart woman, Shego. Which is why I find it hard to believe that you are swallowing the koolaid the right is pushing as a diversionary tactic.
Added at: 13:43

Eh? When does the government do anything cheaper than the private sector?

Hippie.

 

[Tress]

I didn't see your post. My reply was to the ones above yours.

I'm more than sure the costs to a goverment run drug testing on a large scale would alot lower than the costs that are currently being assumed by comparison to large companies etc.

So you were replying to my post? The one where I cite a study, with actual numbers and facts? It's the same as what Krisken said. Your entire counter is "But I don't like it, so there." Give me something concrete to discuss beyond anecdotal evidence and a blind rejection of constitutional law because it doesn't fit into your worldview.

 

[PatrThom]

Drug tests are notoriously less than 100% accurate. If something like this goes through, I certainly hope there would be some sort of appeals process for the 1-out-of-10 people who:
-Use marijuana medicinally
-Get a false positive for poppyseeds
-Just had eye surgery
-Take Sudafed/Wellbutrin/antidepressants
-Are considered disabled and/or homebound due to crippling agoraphobia, allergies, bulky medical equipment, or the like.

It seems like it would make more sense to allow your first welfare check to be an "advance" where a portion of it is used to pay for transportation and screening. Apply online or by phone. During the application process, transportation or in-home testing is arranged, and payment method is established (direct deposit, courier, PayPal, whatever). Also, any possible extenuating circumstances (see above) are discussed. If you are approved, your first payment will be reduced by an amount equal to the costs incurred for your transportation/testing. Periodic testing ensures that you stay clean. If you are not approved, then the State has essentially spent money out of its own pocket to determine that you are ineligible (which it would've done anyway) and you get nothing (which is as it should be). An appeal should not be necessary since the extenuating circumstances were already discussed and established before the first test was taken. You may apply again for aid in 6 months.

--Patrick
EDIT: Wow, a lot of posts came in while I was composing this.

 

[Shakey]

Drug test all those damn hippie farmers too. They all smoke pot like Willie who runs that Farm Aid benefit. They get millions from the government in subsidies and disaster relief. We don't want that money going to help fund their drug habits either. Oh wait, they're not poor and welfare is fun to pick on.

 

[Shegokigo]

My point is that those who use drugs - whether they paid for them or not!! - would automatically be stricken from the roles of public assistance, but so would their kids or dependents. I truly see where wanting to get those who are gaming the system off the system, but this way of doing it is a huge overreaction to the actual problem, and is more a tool of the right to attempt to disenfranchise the poor rather than to show any level of fiscal responsibility.

You feel for the kids, but it's not the government's job to parent the nation's children. If those parents are somehow aquiring drugs to abuse/use while on Welfare they could have found other means of sustaining their family. I just don't see why the government should be in charge of a junkie's child's wellbeing. I don't see how that's me "drinking the Right's kool-aid"

I'm speaking from personal experiences. I know that there is a large portion of the welfare program to sustain people who truly do not want to work/support themselves or their family and some of them also have drug habits. This isn't from my isolated experience with a distant family member, this is from years of being in the banking world and seeing the differences in people on assistance. Yes of course there are people who need it, however, I don't see why it's ok for them to be drug abusers as well.

So you were replying to my post? The one where I cite a study, with actual numbers and facts? It's the same as what Krisken said. Your entire counter is "But I don't like it, so there." Give me something concrete to discuss beyond anecdotal evidence and a blind rejection of constitutional law because it doesn't fit into your worldview.

You didn't cite any studies. You cited your personal opinion, much did I. Krisken however, did cite a study and I will address that in a minute.

 

[Dubyamn]

I don't see anything wrong with it.

I see a two problems right off the bat.

1. Drug testing isn't free. Even if the test costs pennies we will still have to test we will still be testing hundreds of thousands of people and those costs will add up. We will in effect be penny wise dollar stupid.

2. Drug testing isn't 100% effective. There are false positives and when you test the number of people that are going to be tested under this program you will end up kicking people out of the program who have done nothing wrong. Yes this is a government program that will deny people benefits they deserve.

So the program makes no sense as a cost saving measure and it will eliminate people who take no drugs from the welfare rolls. This program perfectly threads the needle of being both monstrously draconian and stupidly non cost effective.

 

[Dave]

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-l...testing-policy-already-costing-taxpayers-more

This is a bad idea that costs more money than it saves but since it hurts the poor who cares, right?

 

[Shegokigo]

@Dub: Where are you factoring in the thousands in savings of keeping the large number of abusers from receiving funds?

@Dave: It only stands to hurt poor drug abusers, so after the third time you've posted that I still fail to see your point.

 

[Chibibar]

The article said the drug test is on their own expense. So the person applying for it will pay for the test.

But I can see why it would be a catch 22 since if they can't afford food/housing how can these people afford the test.

 

[Dubyamn]

The article said the drug test is on their own expense. So the person applying for it will pay for the test.

But I can see why it would be a catch 22 since if they can't afford food/housing how can these people afford the test.

The state reimburses those who pass the test. So no the state will still be paying for the vast vast majority of the tests.
Added at: 21:29

@Dub: Where are you factoring in the thousands in savings of keeping the large number of abusers from receiving funds.

Out of the millions that will be spent on drug testing.

 

[Dave]

@Dub: Where are you factoring in the thousands in savings of keeping the large number of abusers from receiving funds?

@Dave: It only stands to hurt poor drug abusers, so after the third time you've posted that I still fail to see your point.

It doesn't hurt JUST drug abusers. It hurts those who have engaged in even casual drug use whether they paid for it or not. It hurts their kids. It hurts the community. When they can't get welfare what then? To live what do they do? Turn to crime? Then they get incarcerated and the prison systems - a cash cow for the states - make money.

But I guess again since it's the poor that doesn't matter, right?

 

[Krisken]

The state reimburses those who pass the test. So no the state will still be paying for the vast vast majority of the tests.
Added at: 21:29

Out of the millions that will be spent on drug testing.

eww, reimbursement. that assumes they can pay for it in the first place. it's like a rebate. I don't know the last time i mailed in a rebate.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

People that are addicted to drugs need help more than ever. On its face, this just looks hilariously tea-party-cruel.

Also, does it deny benefits to those using tobacco or alcohol?

 

[Krisken]

People that are addicted to drugs need help more than ever. On its face, this just looks hilariously tea-party-cruel.

Also, does it deny benefits to those using tobacco or alcohol?

caffeine testing on a regular basis. (not serious)

 

[Chibibar]

so how about without any reimbursement on drug test?

I am not familiar with the drug test procedure. (as in what it cost) I have taken many drug test for work and government jobs.

 

[Dave]

so how about without any reimbursement on drug test?

I am not familiar with the drug test procedure. (as in what it cost) I have taken many drug test for work and government jobs.

And in these tests your potential employer is the one who paid for it.

Average cost for a drug test is $42.

 

[Chibibar]

And in these tests your potential employer is the one who paid for it.

Average cost for a drug test is $42.

I would normally say 42$ is not much, but when a family doesn't any money (which I have been in that situation) 42$ is a lot of money to get to do a drug test (x2 when it requires BOTH parents)

And consider how many people who are in this socialist system (which is funny cause people who are IN welfare doesn't think they are in socialist system) I can see it can get expensive really quick (if the government pay for it) or a lot of people who can't afford the test won't get welfare.

I can see Dave's view that some people who legitimately NEED welfare and CAN'T afford the test would be left out of the system too so the question would be.

Is such a system to weed out a smaller group (if it is the case which I don't know) that can hurt more legit people in the long run?

 

[Krisken]

hold on. that's the cost, not what is charged. as it said, it doesn't include staff fees.