I agree. Treatment and rehabilitation all the way.

We also have to be realistic with this or any issue concerning money as we dont have an endless supply of money or resources in our country and we should be first expending it upon those who care enough to follow the laws of the country. I mean, what parent would have their own kids starve to make sure the neighbors are fed. We take care of home first, but that doesnt mean that WHEN WE CAN, we shouldnt help others too.

As it pertains to the drugs, I happen to agree that we are throwing more money away on imprisonment than we would spend if we treated instead.

Let's say ya' sentenced someone to treatment who didn't want it.
All that money is spent on them. They get out and 30 days later, they are tested positive again.
Then, what you propose doing with them?

If they are scamming one system, they will scam them all.

My mother was a drunk til I was about 20-21 then found the world of kick *** prescription drugs, we forced into rehab multiple times and she didn't want it! Take a guess on how well rehab works on someone who doesn't want it. Take away their free ride and it might just wake some people up.

Not.

I just heard about this.

I guess hatred just over rides common sense in some parts of the country huh?

They hate their poor folks so much that they are willing to pay more state taxes to piss a bunch of poor people looking for the few illegal drug users in the bunch who will get around the drug tests.

Working folks who do drugs know all about the "meds" out there to take before you get tested so you don't show positive....lol

I guess hatred has to cost somebody. So Kentucky is new payer of this debt

I'm with you.

It's spiteful and senseless.

Again I'm with you.

Why do others worry what happens in a state they don't live in.

Vote to **** your own poor and starve their children.

There are better ways to handle this problem than stereotyping everyone who asks for help as a drug user and punishing their innocent children..

Hey, now! I live in California, and....and....well you're probably right.

I've always been opposed to unearned tax money being used to finance addictions. There is a LOT of it happening in Cali. We have something here called 'the crazy check' which can get you something like $1,000 a month (I've heard $900, and I've heard $1,200). Over the years I've known of many dozens of people who received this check, and all of them could have held down a job if they so chose. Most of them deliberately lied their way into getting the crazy check. Most of them spend little to no money on food and little to no money on housing, and spend most of their crazy check on drugs. Some of them seem to have really damaged their brains, over time, through excessive drug use.


Edit: The "most" I'm talking about here are 'most of the people I know who are on the crazy check', which is a considerable number, but which is by no means a random sample.

Sure, they should be able to get them. If we're talking teens, then they can get themselves a paper route and earn the money to buy themselves some potato chips. Or offer to help other people with child care and such.

I don't spend my own money on potato chips, because they are too expensive for something with so little nutritional value. Now why should the government come and take my money from me, under threat of force, and give it to someone else so they can go buy themselves something I'm unwilling to waste my own money on, for myself?



No, I've seen first hand the way that some parents on food stamps treat their children. A lot of food stamp children are getting complete **** from their parents. Why? Is it ignorance? A lack of caring?



Yes. When the government forces me to subsidize someone elses life, I'm pretty okay saying: only if they spend it on healthy food, otherwise no dice.

there is no way to trace where or who the two dollars a child spent on chips came from

taxpayers also include those now on assistance, who will more than put that money back into the pot (and have probably already more than paid into the pot) over their working lifetimes


biggest myth in our culture is that welfare is somehow a resource that only takes from some to pay for others, its a TAX resource which each adult american will be paying into for the majority of their lives,,,

It is not an unreasonable request to ask that those receiving handouts whoever they are to submit a drug test. If a person doesn't use drugs they have nothing to worry about and if they do use drugs its time to get a job. oh wait, jobs often times require a drug test before hiring...wah wah wahahahahah

Considering most of the people on these boards don't subsidize shyte when it comes to welfare because they get a damn refund back from the government each tax day returning their taxes to them.

And no one has the right to tell others what they can and can't eat.

Again there is lots of stuff out there to take before you get drug tested that makes you show negative on piss tests.

So wasted money for Kentucky

Hey that rhymes

In my opinion people can be so stupid. They let their hatred of others cost them money.

If parents are dumb enough to get high while having kids in the house, they need to be locked up and the kids placed in good homes.
If the kid gets a dirty UA, make 'em a ward of the state.

it's not about hating foreigners, it's about doing things the legal way, kind of like the way the citizens have to follow laws... why do they get a free pass for breaking a law?

Two dollars cash, of course. And thats good. If you are on welfare or food stamps, but have some extra cash from some other source which you'd like to spend on chips, go for it! No one is saying that people on food stamps should be banned from eating chips. Thats the ridiculous straw man argument that keeps cropping up, which I find both illogical and dishonest.

My idea here is: the food stamp moneys themselves should not be spent on non-nutritious junk 'food'. In california, people are issue plastic food stamp cards much like debit cards, and for WIC they get actual paper vouchers. This makes it very easy to implement a 'food only' policy.



This is true for some, but not for all. There is an entire culture of people in california that spend decades of their lives taking and taking from community and government sources, and never contributing to that pool. There is a limit to how much they can abuse systems like food stamps (eventually they get cut off), but they defraud the government every way they can to maximize that abuse.

A hair folicle will tell you everything you need to know.

What is hair drug screening?

A hair screen is an examination that uses a small sample of hair to identify specific drugs used by the person being tested. A hair follicle drug test measures the drug molecules and their specific metabolites that are produced only after the drug has been processed by the human body. After the drug is processed, trace amounts of its metabolites are inserted into hair follicle by the bloodstream.

What time period does a standard hair follicle test cover?

A standard hair follicle screen covers a period of approximately 90 days, but is susceptible to time variation depending on the growth rate of your hair. The hair sample is cut as close to the scalp as possible and the most recent 3.9cm (or 1.5 inches) are tested. It is possible to go back even further than 90 days since the time period is limited only by the length of the hair sample, but is standardized to a 90 day history.

What type of drugs can be detected in a standard hair test?

Cocaine (Cocaine & Benzoylecgonine), Marijuana, Opiates (Codeine, Morphine & 6-Monacteyl Morphine), Methamphetamine (Methamphetamine/Amphetamine & Ecstasy), and Phencyclidine (PCP). These five drug classes are mandated for testing by the Federal Government.

How fast does head hair grow?

Hair collected at the crown of the head grows on the average of approximately 1.3 cm (or 1/2 inch) per month. This growth rate varies among people by approximately + .2 cm per month which can create a possible time variation of up to +1 week per month.

Can body hair be drug tested like hair from the head?

Body hair can be drug tested just as hair from the head. The growth rates for body are considerably slower than the hair from your head. Most body hair is replaced in about one year. It is challenging to precisely represent the time period of a standard screen with body hair so substances may be detected in body hair for up to 1 year after the substance left the blood stream.

How much hair is needed?

A standard screen with GC/MS confirmation requires 40+ milligrams of hair or approximately 50 - 70 strands that are up to 3.9cm (or 1.5 inches) in length. The thickness and pigment color of different types of head hair (thick black vs. thinning gray) is the basis of this variation.

What if I am almost bald or have no hair?

Hair can be collected from several head and/or body locations (excluding pubic areas) and combined to obtain the required amount of hair. In the rare case where no hair is collectable, complete urine/adulteration testing may be utilized.

How effective is hair follicle testing in detecting drug usage?

In comparison to a urinalysis drug test, cocaine, PCP, opiates, and methamphetamine have proven hair analysis far more effective than urine testing in identifying low-level drug use over an extended period of time since these are normally out of the bloodstream in within 3-7 days. The detection of marijuana is currently less sensitive than the other drugs in identifying low level drug users, but is considered approximately equal to urinalysis in identifying marijuana users. The detection period for hair is limited only by the length of the hair sample and is approximately 90 days for a standard screen.

How do drugs get into hair?

After a substance is ingested, whether orally, smoked, snorted, or injected, metabolites are produced as the drug is processed by the human body. As these drugs and metabolites circulate in the blood stream, they enter and nourish the hair follicle and are then inserted into the hair strand.

Some people get all of their income tax returned, but there are additional taxes (also taken directly from our paychecks) that we never get back.



That has nothing to do with this conversation. What you can and can't eat is completely different from what you can and can't spend your food stamp money on.

very little is true for ALL, but Id contend its probably true for MOST ever since AFDC was changed to TANF(which by defninition means TEMPORARY assistance)

for most , they will pay into taxes over their working lifetime much more than they will ever personally see coming back and much more than will be granted them when in need of assistance

food stamps should be applicable to anything under the label of GROCERY, which would include treats like chips unless we are going to expend money and human resources to label which food is 'healthy' enough and which food is not