which drugs? valuum? meth? tobacco? alcohol? weed?


if someone is functioning and productive,, why does their drug of choice bother us so much?

M not talking about the drug disabled who obviously need help

Im talking about the very BROAD BRUSH used when speaking about 'drug users' and choosing which ones to demonize,,,,,

I only have a problem with them if they are using my tax dollars to buy them instead of putting it toward the support of their family.

If they don't have a job and/or can't afford food, I think tobacco, alcohol, weed, meth or whatever should not make the priority list of things they can now afford because they're on assistance.

I would not buy them those things if they walked up and asked me, so why would I be okay with my tax contribution going into a household that manages their money thus? I'm not.

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that if we understood their hardships we would understand their need to buy drugs instead of feeding their children, so would feel better about our tax dollars being used to feed their children while they continue to buy drugs?

kjlk6m


I understand that too. But the issue is many of these people are EARNING That money. THey are required to perform work activity for that money. So if they have earned it through work, how is dictating where its spent any different than , say, walmart dictating where its workers can spend their money,, or walmart consumers having a say in where there money ends up being spent ?


if it was a mere givaway , I might agree, but there are plenty of things that are required of recipients to EARN that little bit of assistance,, which I dont think is the same as 'charity' or someone walking up on the street and asking you for money,,,,,

we dont ask the maid where she is going to spend the money she was paid for cleaning our home, why should I as a taxpayer demand such authority over what an impoverished person spends money on?

I agree. I don’t want to government to by force take my money in the form of taxes and give it out through welfare to someone that want to smoke weed. If you want to smoke weed, get a job and buy your own with your money.

Although if the government wants to give money out and let people smoke weed with welfare, I wonder if I can get on welfare and use it to buy movies I want, or things I want to collect?

Government is force and forces us to support things that we don’t believe in. Charity would be better because then we can choose to support the charities that line up with what we believe. To often Government only funds the problems and good intention. We the people can fund results by choosing to support those charities that have results.

Yes, that is different. I probably should have been stating with each post that I am not familiar with how Texas runs their welfare programs. I suppose I might have imagined that Texas would not bend as easily as some states to how the federal government tries to dictate running welfare programs.

So, you are absolutely right that taxpayers should have no say in how they spend there welfare program money as it is earned...but I could see there being some who might be upset about it if they have to wait to get into those programs.

Those folks, if they are on assistance are not taking care of business if they are buying huff and living off the tax payer.

BTW
It's in the grapevine, this will eventually extend to the unemployment extension folks.
Great news.
I have been sending emails every week for 2 years, to get the welfare testing done and have been, in the last couple months, sending emails to drug test the chronic unemployed still collecting Unemployment.
I reckon, pestering the reps does some good after all.

PS,
Ms H.
Any drug they haven't been prescribed or, any illegal substance. If, they have had DUI felonies, I'd have them cut as well.

understandable,, in whatever states where they are just GIVING the money away for free,, I Can see testing

in states where they are already requiring recipients to WORK for that money, I dont see it being anyones business,,,,

although I still believe it will be costing taxpayers even more than what proponents allege it will save,,,

I'll be interested to see how Texas handles the cost too.

So if they want to cut the drug users out of the program, it seems strange to me that they have to use testing to do it if they see these people regularly. I'm no expert on drugs, but know when someone shows up to work TOTALLED.

Upside down world.
Libs want to see billions spent on gun control, to save the kids. Then they cry when money will go to protect the kids from drug using parents.

They have money to support their habit, they don't need public assistance.

Again, I am sending emails to push for drug testing chronic unemployed who are on unemployment extensions. Just shot off another one.

any body hat requires dug tests should themselves be subject to those
drug tests


after all they are passing laws that effect millions

they should not be doing so while under the influence of a mind altering substance

Some interesting stats...

Texas currently pays out $90 million a year to 91,000 welfare recipients...

Bill11 passed the senate with a unanimous vote of 31 - 0...

Texas has a budget proposal of $300 million over two years...

Where the money will be spent...Written questionnaires for new and renewing welfare requests, urinalysis drug screening, drug rehabilitation and counseling services....

Who will be tested?...Those flagged based on answers provided in the questionnaire, those with past drug felony convictions, those who previously tested positive...

What the polls show...
68% of those polled are in favor of drug screening for welfare applicants
27% of those polled are against drug screening for welfare applicants
5% of those polled are not sure

http://www.publicagendaarchives.org/charts/people-support-mandatory-drug-tests-welfare-recipients

Perhaps it will work out better than in Florida:

In the four months that Florida's law was in place, the state drug tested 4,086 TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs — a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs. Now might be a good time to remind folks that in the debate over the bill, Gov. Rick Scott argued that this law was necessary because, he said, welfare recipients used drugs at a higher rate than the general population.

The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants — 3,938 to be exact — who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help — an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases.



http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/just-we-suspected-florida-saved-nothing-drug-testing-welfare

It's not a reliable or even meaningful comparison because Florida law required EVERY welfare applicant be drug screened at their own expense...If they tested clean, the state would refund the $30 to $35 cost...Other states (including Texas) are proposing much less invasive, and most likely constitutional, laws by proposing testing include ONLY those SUSPECTED of drug addiction/abuse as well as including provisions to protect children of identified drug users/abusers....

How many did not apply or did not take the test because they knew they couldn't pass?

The amount of ignorant flak you're hit with when you do share your story can usually be one hell of a deterrent...Respect is a two-way thing, I would recommend other people who have not done drugs become a tad more modest in their approach to the problem than they have been to this point.

Cigarette smokers are second-class citizens...Remember hearing that? In an actual social class setting, drug users are probably far less than third rate.

Separation has never been a good answer.