Drug tests for Public Assistance recipients

But if we grew some hair on our chests, threw the bums out and elected some people with common sense it might actually work!

 

um....we're talking about Public assistance.

Try to keep up.

 

So what. The standard here seems to test everyone. May I see your papers please?

 

I thought you would back the constitutional position of presumed innocence.

 

Just think:

If government wasn't involved in taking money from those who work for it to give to those who didn't, we might still have some problems but the concerns discussed in this thread wouldn't be one of them.



Personally I think the federal government needs to butt out of these programs. Give the money to the states and let each state determine which needs and how to meet them. Occassional drug testing for welfare recipients may seem reasonable to expect.... but it is expensive and involves transportation to labs and additional lab staff to do the paperwork, labeling, certification by the donor that specimen container wasn't tampered with and was seal in his presence, collection and securing all personal items in pockets and removal of any extra clothing, and setting up the collection area to ensure that no contamination or adulteration occurs, temperature of specimen is taken before sealing and initialing to send to lab. Client is expected to comply with request for specimen. Fuilds offered and reasonable wait is allowed. Any refusal is noted and in legal cases or DOT screen, considered a failure. All prescription drugs taken are noted...... so they aren't implicated in the screen or can be confirmed with the client's own prescribing doctor. Any physical conditions which might alter clearance levels is included in the application.

IOW, it can be a routine experience for someone who's been through it before..... but people who are subjected to drug tests have a reasonable right to be informed regarding what to expect and the checks in place to make sure that the sample given isn't contaminated or altered before it is tested.... and under what circumstances privacy may be invaded and by whom. All of this requires man power and time.

Personally I'd resent the indignities of being a welfare recipient. Having strangers inquire of records and knowing those records pass through the hands of so many strangers hands..... (maybe some remarks trigger curiosity or comments.....gossip) sort of deprives one of the sense of uniqueness, privacy, and dignity: The tax man does this once a year to me...... and I find that invasive too much for my likeing.

(When I was driving a truck, drug testing was required before hire.... and thereafter annually..... plus compliance with law required the company to have randomized drug testing.)

 

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

The standard is not to test everyone.

The question is whether to test those who wish to receive public assistance.

 

I really don’t have an answer, sorry.

I took in my niece and nephew for a year because their mother and her live in popped positive for meth.

For 12 months I provided for these children with no assistance from the state. We had to buy them clothes, get them into school, rearrange living spaces to hold everyone, etc.

While we were doing that all CPS required the parents to do was go to AA meetings and NA meetings. No rehab, no parenting classes. I had to drive two hours every other month so that the parents could have supervised visits, at my own expense. For 12 months I foot the bill for their drug habit.

At the end of that time and CPS placed those kids back with their parents I was told it was because the caseworker was retiring and there was no one to take up the case. Not that everything was great now, but because there was no one to take up the case.


Having said all that I must say that my sister in law is clean and sober and has been doing great. The kids are doing well, and it did work out. But not because of the system. The system did nothing but stress out my family and those two kids.

I say that to simply show how crowded the system is and to say "remove the kids because the parents are on dope" will only further stretch an already over stretched program.

I am not sure there is an easy answer to this.

I do think drug test is a good idea though.

I also believe that if one is receiving assistance of ANY type from the government, they should not be able to play the lottery or go to casinos or any thing like that.

 

If we are going to take money from people who have earned it, and give it to people who have not earned it, there should be some sort of system in place to assure us that the money intended for the most innocent victims (the children) is not misused. Or for that matter, that the money that I have removed from my paycheck and given to someone who didn't work for it...isn't misused in a criminal manner.


It's really not that hard to understand.

Of course, we could just take half of your paycheck, give it to whoever asks for it, and not worry about the details. See? No "papers" involved there.

 

When it comes to scamming other people's money . . . why is tax money more important than church contributions? Seems to me that the majority of the scams that make the wire services are church related . . . a crook posing as a financial adviser to the congregation. Maybe church officials should get lie box tests and well as drug tests. How do you know that the guy who wants to be your treasurer REALLY invited Jesus into his heart?

 

Are you a christian?

 

It is unfortunate that you cannot tell the difference between the government and the church. Of course, the truth would be nice to see in your posts, but I doubt you recognize truth...

It is also sad that you intentionally slander the church to make a political statement.

But honestly, I don't expect anything other than that from you.

I find it pitiable that you hold the church in such contempt.

I wish I were surprised...but this is par for the course for you.

Sad.

Maybe one day you will realize what the church exists for.

Until then...feel free to throw out your grenades, and continue your attacks against the people of God. Unsubstantiated, unwarranted, but attacks nonetheless...

 

I'm a "victim" of routine drug tests myself.

I really shake with fear every time my name comes up.:sleeping_2:

 

I'm with you, it is no problem or worry. But the blood pressure test does cause me to worry, my doctor give it and I'm about 129 over 82 but for work at their place, I get a little worried and it get up to 138 over about 84 and I can't pass if it get over 140.

 

There more I have thought about this, the more I am against it. Not only would it cost a fortune. Not only would it create more government not less. But I think it would be a nightmare and not be effective. My experience with government workers, you would end up with at best incompetence to police this, and in reality a system easily beaten. At the worst corruption in lieu of results, in many cases probably a combination of both.

 

I joined the Coast Guard and took a drug test. I was tested several times a year while in.
I took a job in a textile mill and took a drug test. They tested me again when I started driving a fork lift.

Why should we worry about the stigma for those recievent assistance when no one believes that it is a stigma for the military or for the working tax payers. Do the public assistance recipients think that they are better or more trustworthy than our soldiers and sailors?