Drug tests for Public Assistance recipients

I'd report it.

The kids are going to suffer no matter what. I'd prefer that they were removed from such an environment. I've also dealt with enough families that had drug problems to know that in about 50-60% of the cases there is a relative who is NOT a druggie who can take care of the kids until the druggie gets rehab and stays clean for a while. But that's my limited experience in the areas I have lived in. Places like NYC, Chicago and Atlanta, etc. probably would have lower percentages.

 

And it their income is low because they sit around getting high and watching the tube instead of working that's ok with you?

I personally would rather not pay "contributions" or "investments" or whatever else they are calling taxes these days to support such behavior.

 

I have no problem with people getting drug tested who receive government benefits at the tax payer's expense. That's they way it should be. Of course, a typical drug test will cost around $20.00 to $30.00. I think the person being tested, should be required to pay for the drug test. I don't think the tax payers should have to pay for that test.

 

What about WIC? Food Stamps?

Or are you specifically talking about recipients of cash?

 

I counted six hands, here.

I'll bet you could have a costume that would really scare little kids at Halloween, with six hands showing. Ya' know, kind of like "Dr. Octopus" in "Spiderman".

Have you considered that, for one possibility??

Ed

 

While I support it on one hand, I am concerned----I imagine myself going in to sign up for food stamps and being told that I have to take a drug test. I'd feel criminal. It has a stigma. Also, being told that I would have to pay to prove I wasn't a criminal would be humiliating.

 

When I lived in West Alabama, there was an enormous underground market with food stamps (this was pre-EBT card; not sure how it works now).

Several instances:

• I was in line behind a customer who was paying with food stamps. They had a 50 lb. bag of dog food on the conveyer. When the clerk told them that pet food couldn't be paid for with food stamps, the woman sent her child back, and had him return with a package of round steaks. She commented that her dog would eat well this week. Mad, I was.
• "Food stamps for cash" trades took place regularly at area grocery stores in west Alabama. I honestly don't remember the "rate," but it seemed like 60-70 cents on the dollar. (I hope the EBT card helped knock that out).
• Adjusting food stamp payments was notoriously slow where we were. Often times, a family who lost a dependent (they moved out, joined the army, got married, etc.,) would continue to receive food stamps for that sized household for months, maybe years, later. Often times, the family would sell the excess stamps to other folks. Our next-door neighbors did this for a couple of years after their two oldest moved out. We called to report the fraud, and I'll never forget the words we were told, and I quote:

Spinach...to address your post, I'm conflicted. I feel there should be an amount of trepidation in applying for public relief. Humiliation takes it too far...but I've known too many people that were not bothered at all that they were on public assistance. It should bother us...and that should be our motivation to better ourselves in whatever way we can, so that we can one day take ourselves off the public dole.

For the kids, I feel for them. But like I said...I don't know where the line is, but it should be between the two extremes of humiliating recipients, and there being nothing thought of living off of other people's labor.

 

Good idea!

Drugs are expensive. Being on drugs strongly suggests one is spending their money on things other than what they should. Like food and clothing and rent, etc.

 

Why? I take a drug test up to four times a year to keep my job and I don't feel like a criminal. I never know when they are coming, I report to work and am given a paper to go to the doctor and do the deal.

 

Because I would know that they are looking for criminals. I would also know that I was being subjected to a needless test because of someone else. I would feel pre-judged.

Another thought. Let's say that they find 1% of welfare recipients to be drug users. I highly doubt that it will take care of the cost of the drug tests, the care of the children removed from such a situation, and/or drug rehab for the guilty party. The cost would enormous, imo.

 

Why do you think they drug test people in some types of jobs? Because of the few who mess up and use drugs. You have to prove you are clean to keep your job in some lines of work. Most law are made do to the exception. I've never used drugs in my life but I have to have the test anyway, no one or goverment trust anyone.

 

How about drug tests for church officials, pastors, deacons and elders?

 

Just a guess here, but something tells me that the cost in actually trying to do this in a way that would be effective would cost an awful lot of money, maybe more than the assistance itself. Lets face it you can't just ask them to bring in a urine sample and expect an accurate system. That would mean you would have to have employ some type of staff to personally test all these people on a regular bases. That just sounds like more government to me not less. Just another program that will be poorly run and ineffective in the long run. No thanks.