Poll: Should welfare and/or food stamp recipients be subjected to drug testing?

[twa]

yeah, the medic i talked to about this said that Bob's grocery on 21st and post office is one of the spots where he picks up the same people every week.

I'm familiar with it

Predicto, what is the way to do it?...what we are doing is not helping.

[CrypticVillain]

It is interesting that so many people say yes and shows the political legacy of puritanism, poor law, and the us versus them mentality in America that you don't really get in other developed nations. There is no sense of social solidarity in this nation and at times it frustrates me. So because a person is getting aid from the government they should be drug tested? Should Medicare recipients be drug tested? What about social security recipients?

I am knee deep with people receiving help from the government. It is a difference between needing aid and abusing it. Like I said, most people in my neighborhood are abusing it. To me, if you are smart enough to abuse the system, you are smart enough to get your GED and get a job.

Medicare and SSI are kind of different. With most of those people, they have legit excuses as to why they can't work. As opposed to my one of my neighbors who has twelve kids and just walks around socializing buying drugs.

[Toe Jam]

And if they aren't smart enough or mentally capable enough to do that? What then? Solyent Green time?

That's a different story.

I'm talking about the healthy, obviously not disabled people in front of me at the grocery store talking on their iPhones about how lit they were last night and paying for three carts of groceries with food stamps.

Hope that clears up my position.

[shk75]

I am knee deep with people receiving help from the government. It is a difference between needing aid and abusing it. Like I said, most people in my neighborhood are abusing it. To me, if you are smart enough to abuse the system, you are smart enough to get your GED and get a job.

Medicare and SSI are kind of different. With most of those people, they have legit excuses as to why they can't work. As opposed to my one of my neighbors who has twelve kids and just walks around socializing buying drugs.

Yes but many argue that government aid for people that are drug addicts is something that we cannot financially afford and they are abusing the system. However what about those few that drive up Medicare costs for the rest. What if they are drug addicts or past drug addicts that have expensive medical needs because of past abuses. The point is that this opens a pandora's box for any government program and this debate is rooted in, as I stated earlier, the early puritanical beliefs of this nation and the role of the English poor law.

[Predicto]

I'm familiar with it

Predicto, what is the way to do it?...what we are doing is not helping.

The $100,000 dollar question. I wish I knew.

I'm a lot better at pointing out obviously horrible ideas than I am at proposing workable solutions.

[TimmySmith]

It is interesting that so many people say yes and shows the political legacy of puritanism, poor law, and the us versus them mentality in America that you don't really get in other developed nations. There is no sense of social solidarity in this nation and at times it frustrates me. So because a person is getting aid from the government they should be drug tested? Should Medicare recipients be drug tested? What about social security recipients?

Are you implying that the government should hand money to whomever asks for it? That would be my definition of "social solidarity". I cannot think of a single government program that does not have qualifying terms.

[Teller]

If you have money for drugs, you have money for food. Which one you choose is precisely that; your choice.

[shk75]

No not at all. What I am implying, as I stated in my above post, is that doing this for welfare or food stamps but not any other program is rooted in the mentality that certain types of government welfare are worse than others. This idea of we should only help those who we think are deserving of help is rooted in Puritanism and the Poor Law. I do not agree with it.

[CrypticVillain]

Yes but many argue that government aid for people that are drug addicts is something that we cannot financially afford and they are abusing the system. However what about those few that drive up Medicare costs for the rest. What if they are drug addicts or past drug addicts that have expensive medical needs because of past abuses. The point is that this opens a pandora's box for any government program and this debate is rooted in, as I stated earlier, the early puritanical beliefs of this nation and the role of the English poor law.

I wouldn't even say it is poor law. You do drugs. You know you shouldn't do drugs. You do it anyway. Therefore, there has to be some consequences. Charge former drug addicts more for medicare. If they can't afford, that is on them. You knew that they're risk in doing drugs, but you did it anyway.

All I am saying is that people need to start reaping what they sow. You can't expect to get a free ride your whole life. The reason this country is what it is today is because people put in hard work. I continue to do the same, and I am getting rewarded for it.

[Predicto]

That's a different story.

I'm talking about the healthy, obviously not disabled people in front of me at the grocery store talking on their iPhones about how lit they were last night and paying for three carts of groceries with food stamps.

Hope that clears up my position.

Yeah, it does. You are guided by anecdotal urban myths that rarely ever happen rather than by reality.

[elkabong82]

so they decide to mate drug testing AND foot the bill to recipients. if they pass they get a refund, and I'm sure that won't be a long, tedious process, nor will paying for the test be a problem for someone on foodstamps, smh.

drug testing is only effective against pot smokers, everything else is out of the system within days. and it's not the pot smokers that drag down the system, it's the people chemically addicted to hard drugs.

I think the proposal is insulting and stereotypical as well. And how is this going to work exactly? A 1 time test? That won't stop anybody. A continual test? Great, I'm sure welfare recipients won't have trouble ponying up that cash each time.

And when they don't pass the test, what are the consequences? No stamps, so no food. So they are starving, oh and coming down off hard drugs, yeah I'm sure that won't increase muggings and other types of theft.

If government ever wanted to get serious about drug problems with welfare recipients, then they'd try and actually understand the drug and addiction and make decisions based off that instead of off the naive view that drugs are bad and can be quit if someone really wants to. They should pay for the drug test if they really want to force it on people, and those who fail go to a paid rehab. In the long run, those initial costs of drug testing and rehab will be less than someone who skirts the system and stays addicted and on foostamps for their life.

[sportjunkie07]

That's a different story.

I'm talking about the healthy, obviously not disabled people in front of me at the grocery store talking on their iPhones about how lit they were last night and paying for three carts of groceries with food stamps.

Hope that clears up my position.

i see a lot of this, its infuriating. just pull out the whic card (lonestard card in TX). bam, $200 of groceries.

meanwhile, im behind them in line with ramen noodles, 15 cans of tuna, a sack of potatoes, and offbrand everything, just the basics to survive and make it through college.

[shk75]

I wouldn't even say it is poor law. You do drugs. You know you shouldn't do drugs. You do it anyway. Therefore, there has to be some consequences. Charge former drug addicts more for medicare. If they can't afford, that is on them. You knew that they're risk in doing drugs, but you did it anyway.

All I am saying is that people need to start reaping what they sow. You can't expect to get a free ride your whole life. The reason this country is what it is today is because people put in hard work. I continue to do the same, and I am getting rewarded for it.

The problem with this line of thinking is almost everyone is guilty of doing something in their lives that negatively affects others. If government were to spend time investigating if people were current or former drug addicts it would never get anything done. Furthermore, where do you draw the line? So drugs are bad what about alcoholics? What about people that spend disposable income on luxury items instead of necessary items?

[Toe Jam]

Yeah, it does. You are guided by anecdotal urban myths that rarely ever happen rather than by reality.

You're barking mad Predicto.

These people DO exist. I've seen them with my own two eyes.

They're the ones at Kroger at 12:01 AM on the first of the month.

I tend to do my grocery shopping late at night to avoid the crowds. Twice I've accidentally done this ritual on the first. The woman in front of me was on her iPhone discussing some party she was at the night before and how effed up she got.

I wanted to scream.

Then there's my mother, who used to sell her food stamps for drug money. So much for anecdotal urban myths.

[elkabong82]

If you have money for drugs, you have money for food. Which one you choose is precisely that; your choice.

yep. the chemically addictive drugs don't play a role in that decision at all, it's up to pure choice.

[Predicto]

You're barking mad Predicto.

These people DO exist. I've seen them with my own two eyes.

They're the ones at Kroger at 12:01 AM on the first of the month.

I tend to do my grocery shopping late at night to avoid the crowds. Twice I've accidentally done this ritual on the first. The woman in front of me was on her iPhone discussing some party she was at the night before and how effed up she got.

I wanted to scream.

Then there's my mother, who used to sell her food stamps for drug money. So much for anecdotal urban myths.

That is why I said "rarely" rather than "never."

The overwhelming majority of food stamp recipients are not living high on the hog. Drugs and alcohol are a real problem among the poor in our society, but nevertheless, most food stamps are used to buy food.

[sportjunkie07]

That is why I said "rarely" rather than "never."

The overwhelming majority of food stamp recipients are not living high on the hog. Drugs and alcohol are a real problem among the poor in our society, but nevertheless, most food stamps are used to buy food.

like zoony said, it needs to be regulated, you buy oatmeal, carrots, baby formula, etc., not friggin peanut butter cups and porterhouses.

and for the record, drug tests are very easy to fake. plus there are so many synthetic drugs (weed/coke/shrooms) out there that are not detectable.

[Predicto]

like zoony said, it needs to be regulated, you buy oatmeal, carrots, baby formula, etc., not friggin peanut butter cups and porterhouses.

I'll buy that too.

[Toe Jam]

That is why I said "rarely" rather than "never."

The overwhelming majority of food stamp recipients are not living high on the hog. Drugs and alcohol are a real problem among the poor in our society, but nevertheless, most food stamps are used to buy food.

Food! nom nom nom!

(I've run out of things to say in this thread).

[MattFancy]

I can understand people wanting it. (Although I suspect that for a lot of people, the motivation is more punitive and humiliation than anything else.)

But I keep running up against that concept called "probable cause". Meaning that a person is supposed to have privacy, unless there is probable cause (which, to me, means "better than 50-50 chance that he's guilty") that a crime is being committed. (Not "that a crime has been committed some time in the last few weeks".)

I don't think that the government (or your employer, either) has the right to demand that someone prove that they haven't committed a crime any time lately. (At least in most cases. I suppose that there might be certain, specific, exceptions.)

(And no, I don't believe that people give up their basic rights whenever they set foot outside their hermetically sealed, EM shielded, underground bunker.)

Pretty much my feelings too. I see the reasoning behind it, but the cost of implementing it and keeping up with it, might not be worth it.

[Predicto]

Food! nom nom nom!

(I've run out of things to say in this thread).

You could always finish by agreeing with me. :halo:

[Teller]

yep. the chemically addictive drugs don't play a role in that decision at all, it's up to pure choice.

It was my choice to drink heavily every night for a year and a half after my divorce. It was my choice to stop. (I went through DT's, the whole nine yards. If you're looking for sympathy for drug addicts, I'm afraid you'll have to bark up a different tree.)

[Predicto]

It was my choice to drink heavily every night for a year and a half after my divorce. It was my choice to stop. (I went through DT's, the whole nine yards. If you're looking for sympathy for drug addicts, I'm afraid you'll have to bark up a different tree.)

I'm glad you didn't starve too.

[daveakl]

Should home owners that claim an interest deduction be subjected to drug testing?

Should people that are collecting social security be subject to drug testing?

Should people that are on medicare/medicade be subject to drug testing?

I am not sure if the original question is suggesting that people that accept money from the gov't should be subject to drug testing or that people that are at or below the poverty level should be subject to drug testing.

[Teller]

I'm glad you didn't starve too.

So am I. But that was part of the decision to quit. When you're spending $80-90 a week on alcohol, you have to make a choice; even if you're not using food stamps (which I wasn't.)

What I did use (eventually) was a little bit of common damned sense.