Chazster wrote:



Chazster is right. I feel we shouldn't even have to point this out, its pretty obvious. Having pointed it out once, we should have to keep hearing that fallacious argument over and over again. Why can't people at least aspire to both honesty and reason?




I think the difference here is that some people thing its their birthright to get a handout. They feel entitled to have the government take other people's money under threat of force, and give it to them if they 'fall on hard times'.


MsHarmony wrote:




Good, because its nonsense!



I can see your point - but I think the 'justice' issue really comes into play depending on how you handle the people who test positive.




I don't support corporate welfare, and I do think that corporate welfare recipients should be scrutinized and subject to strict criteria. I'm not convinced that drug testing should be a high priority, but placing restrictions on giving themselves bonuses would be! (Bonuses which may fuel their coke habits, lol).



You keeping saying that so definitively, but I don't see any research or numbers.



Chazster:



Sadly, many choose drugs over food. I've personally known hundreds of drug addicts who live on government assistance who pretty much never buy food. They've shown me schedules where they can go to get free food from different churches and groups 2-4 times a day. (I volunteer for a group that serves 6 days a week). This is their life, their lifestyle, and they see food as something that comes for free. I've actually had people say "why buy food, when food is free? every dollar I spend on food is a dollar less to spend on cigarettes and weed". And I've also known people on meth and crack who didn't so much say that, but whose behavior demonstrated that attitude.


Many of those same hundreds of people live their lives on a monthly cycle - half the month in a drug-induced stupor, and the 2nd half they are trying to scrape money together (mostly pan handling) for more drugs while they wait for the next round of monthly government financed drug purchases.


TxsGal wrote:



I didn't see any evidence of you making assumptions, either.

here are some numbers 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%'

Thanks, MsHarmony!



I would expect the 'not included' amounts to be greater than $42, which strengthens your argument.



That's completely the wrong number to look at. We don't know how many of those 10,000 chose not to do drugs due to a possible drug test. (Again, I know from personal experience: countless times have I heard someone say they were not going to party in some particular way because of an upcoming employment related drug screening. Sadly, this is often temporary... but I've also heard people say they quit doing drugs specifically for their job.)

These numbers indicate it cost that company about $98 per test.

Suppose they only tested 1,000 of their 10,000 employees - randomly. And suppose this incentivized 500 of the 10,000 employees to not do drugs.

Then it would only cost them $198 for each person they prevented from doing drugs. Not bad.




The catch rate doesn't matter. The 'discouraged' rate is what matters, and its very hard to measure.

true, perhaps when they figure out how to discourage non recipient users who are the majority, they can extend the approach to the welfare system

Just thought I would highlight this.

Those that make the Laws have no Idea what goes on in a world they never experienced. Just saying also.

Yea druggies can work. How do you think they get money for drugs?

Interesting discussion. I have to agree with Chazster though.

msharmony, I am not familiar with job related welfare program requirements though. If a person can work, why would they need welfare? If they can't work (maybe they have small children) then are they refused welfare?

I also think that drug testing people who ask for welfare help is a good idea and not "unconstitutional."

I have known people who were alcoholics and were given welfare simply because alcoholism was considered to be a disease. Their rent and food and alcohol was paid for by welfare. The person stayed drunk constantly. They were so drunk they needed someone to help them renew their welfare paperwork. It was ridiculous.

Hey, I HAVE to take a drug test to work to get money so they HAVE to take a drug test to not work and get money. As someone said, welfare is not a right. That's my opinion, as flimsy as it is, and I support it.

In Europe one is discouraged from the workplace at age 60 and the state is more than willing to pay them money to stay at home. If Europe can do this why is America so scared of doing the same. We all know that unemployment is here to stay. Big Problem not being dealt with....taking it out on the least well off in Society is not the answer. JMHO

friends, family, stealing,,,etc,,

few can hold a job,,,

Its like this. People can qualify for FOOD STAMPS which usually is a cyber amount placed on a card that can ONLY then be used for food. People can also qualify for financial assistance which is an actual CASH amount they can spend on anything. For the Cash assistance most states require work related activity. By work related activity, it means VOLUNTEERING which would still not alleviate their need for an income of some sort. Being able to work and being HIRED for work are not quite the same.

I have never heard of alcoholism based welfare, so I Cant comment but perhaps our resident trainer might,,,,

Watch someone come in here and say you are lying, and then say something about some rule that supposed to prevent this from happening - as if everyone always followed the rules.

I don't see anyone taking anything out on poor people here. Do you?

Maybe some people think that this is an effort to fix deficit issues by focusing on the poor? That doesn't make sense to me. Our government wastes so much money in so many places, I don't see 'fixing welfare' as a priority item for fixing our budget.



Maybe we should be specify which drugs we mean. I'm including weed as a drug (since this is about testing of controlled substances, weed qualifies). I know a lot of people who hold a job and smoke weed constantly.

In the past I've known people who don't exactly have a day job, but who manage businesses, who get all coked up every weekend. And a mess of people in the 20-25 year range who are experimenting casually with a variety of drugs who hold jobs.

It really depends on the drug, and they person, and the kind of work.

plus the potential issues for false positives or those taking meds are real & troublesome

- I'm sorry but I have seen gov't agencies totally F up peoples lives due to stupid beyond stupid mistakes they make - take the college student & father.....a false positive could cost him his children and the progress on the education he has accomplished (as he cannot get aid with a drug use history or a conviction)

and I wouldn;t trust the gov't to fix their mistakes in a timely fashion, or at all, nor would I trust them with that much personal info

In Texas 70% of Illegal Aliens Receive Welfare
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, April 15, 2011, 5:45 PM



Could this really be happening in America?
A new study says 70% of illegal aliens in Texas are on welfare.
Chron.com reported, via Free Republic:

Thirteen years after Congress overhauled the American welfare system, 57 percent of immigrants with children — those in the country legally or not — use at least one government, welfare program according to a report released Tuesday by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Immigration logo 125.jpg

In comparison, 39 percent of native-born Americans with children are signed up for welfare, the report found.

In Texas, 54 percent of legal immigrants and 70 percent of illegal immigrants receive welfare assistance, with illegal immigrants generally receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, according to the study, written by a think tank that favors reducing immigration into the U.S.

Overall, Texas tied with California and New York for the second highest immigrant welfare rates behind Arizona.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/04/in-texas-70-of-illegal-aliens-receive-welfare/

Anyone who doesn't think illegals get welfare really doesn't have a clue as to how the system works.

the welfare is for the children who are not technically illegal, but 'native born'

but if the point of assistance is income and whether or not someone can hold a job,, those particular drug users should be no issue, being that they are able to hold jobs,,,

Well we should change the law so they are not citizens.

I think the laws could be amended to require at least one parent be in the states LEGALLY for the natural born status to apply

I would take it a step farther and require 1 parent to be a citizen. I mean if they are here on a student visa or tourist visa are both legal reasons to be here. The child shouldn't be a citizen though.