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,,,,,

Drug users are free to tell people their life story. Maybe it will help justify them taking them. If more just actually told their story, instead of posing, then maybe they'd get listened to more. Respect is a two-way thing.

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.

Hope it goes viral nationwide.


The Texas Senate passed a bill today that would drug test some welfare applicants and cut off drug users from receiving money. It now goes to the House. The bill passed Wednesday temporarily cuts off benefits to drug users, with a permanent ban after three failed drug tests. Money would still go to an applicant's minor children through a third party.

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?

for instance, I know SEVERAL people who recreationally smoke pot and they are incredibly productive citizens and great parents as much as any person who 'chooses' to use beer or alcohol recreationally,,,,,

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.

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.

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

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

Drug users are free to tell people their life story. Maybe it will help justify them taking them. If more just actually told their story, instead of posing, then maybe they'd get listened to more. Respect is a two-way thing.