Welfare & Drug Testing

[Fectual~]

Welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax. This pisses me off knowing there are drug dealers and crackheads on public assistance. I think public assistance should require drug testing in order to receive benifits. I don't have a drug habit and don't think I should have to support or enable someone else's. Yes it would be costly to drug test every applicant but damn! Think of all the money that could be saved by not supporting or enabling the drug user/abuser.

[KT.]

It wouldn't work since it's not hard to pass a drug test

[Fectual~]

It wouldn't work since it's not hard to pass a drug test

A urine test yes- a blood test not so easy. And a hair strand equally as hard except it can detirmine also the length of said drug use.

[Vengeful Scars]

A urine test yes- a blood test not so easy. And a hair strand equally as hard except it can detirmine also the length of said drug use.

Blood and Hair tests cost an absolute shit ton more money than urine.

I actually agree with this, for some fucked up reason. I am a habitual drug user, and I more or less see(out side of weed) my drug use as something that no one other than myself should support.

But if we're going to go this route on drug users we should do the same thing for alcohol users. We do have more deaths/medical complications from drinking than we do from drugs.

[Anonymous D]

IMO, if you need help with money issues, you dont need to be wasting money on drugs, so this is pretty much a no brainer. Make sure the money we are giving them is going where it needs to go.

[MrShrike]

Easy.

Drug dealers only accept cash - don't pay them in cash.

[Vengeful Scars]

Easy.

Drug dealers only accept cash - don't pay them in cash.

Actually this is pretty much the best idea. If everything remains in plastic ie. Even if you get unemployment you're pretty much just gonna get a prepaid card with no option whatsoever of cash back, You're in the clear.

After that, drug dealers would still have to sell drugs to afford them.

[gorefinger]

I don't think drug testing welfare recipients is all that great of an idea. Today all government benefits are already on debit cards and while it is possible to convert those to cash, I think most people use them the way they were intended. Also, most government benefits are actually given to the CHILDREN of the recipient, and I wouldn't want to risk those children going hungry because Mommy failed a piss test and couldn't get her food stamps. If anything, I think we should primarily gear welfare and food stamps towards needy children in a fashion similar to the WIC program for pregnant women and women with toddlers. They get checks that can only be used for milk, cheese, eggs, juice and cereals.

I started thinking this when I was in Publix the other day and saw a woman using a food stamp card to buy three steaks that cost ~$12 a peice.

Also, unemployment is not welfare. You only get the money if you lose work through no fault of your own, and then you only get a payment based on the amount you've credited through your taxes. That is why you can get cash for unemployment.

[Syme]

Could we see some sources for the numbers in the OP?

As for the idea of drug testing, it's nice in theory for those who get angry over the idea of poor people with drug addictions receiving help, but I doubt it would ever prove practical.

[MrShrike]

Well frankly, it's a legitimate concern, if often overblown and an overused.

As I implied before, if you want a fairly effective and cheap way of handling it, don't pay welfare recipients cash, or at least, don't pay them in a way that enables them to transform it into hard currency which can be used to buy drugs.

Pay them in some other form of credits, which can only be used to make purchases in stores and which stores can redeem for currency, Or, more simply, just pay their welfare payments into an account that doesn't allow cash withdrawals, only store purchases - some kind of debit card would be perfect.

I'm never heard of a drug dealer who accepted VISA or anything else but cold hard cash.

[StonedOne]

Well frankly, it's a legitimate concern, if often overblown and an overused.

As I implied before, if you want a fairly effective and cheap way of handling it, don't pay welfare recipients cash, or at least, don't pay them in a way that enables them to transform it into hard currency which can be used to buy drugs.

Pay them in some other form of credits, which can only be used to make purchases in stores and which stores can redeem for currency, Or, more simply, just pay their welfare payments into an account that doesn't allow cash withdrawals, only store purchases - some kind of debit card would be perfect.

I'm never heard of a drug dealer who accepted VISA or anything else but cold hard cash.

What dealer wants (and, realistically, can have) the use of a card when such things can bounce/etc and leave an easy paper-trail for authorities. The only places I can see as taking cards/credit are the Weed Stores (or whatever they call 'em) in Cali. Though they're legit.

[simonj]

This is a stupid idea which will, if anything, just inevitably create more crime. If you stop giving a drug addict money then they will find money somewhere else, usually illegally.
Seriously, the amount of drug addicts on welfare programs such as this is irrelevantly minuscule compared to the concern at hand.

Instead of thinking up stupid and costly ways of stopping a small population from getting benefits, how about spending a lot more money on drug treatment programs, rehab clinics etc. which will help people kick their nasty habits and become functioning tax paying members of society.

[Fectual~]

This is a stupid idea which will, if anything, just inevitably create more crime..
Seriously, the amount of drug addicts on welfare programs such as this is irrelevantly minuscule compared to the concern at hand.

Instead of thinking up stupid and costly ways of stopping a small population from getting benefits, how about spending a lot more money on drug treatment programs, rehab clinics etc. which will help people kick their nasty habits and become functioning tax paying members of society.

I'm not against drug treatment programs I'm against drug dealers who drive better vehicles, live in better houses, and eat better than we do because we allow them an easy ride on the "boo hoo you lost your job" train. I'm not saying it'd be an easy feat but face it- SOMETHING has to be done.

[Syme]

If a drug dealer is living that well, it's not because they are on unemployment and/or welfare, it's because they are making a lot of money by selling drugs. Welfare/unemployment don't provide enough money for a person to live an extravagant lifestyle (at least not for very long).

I understand why it's frustrating to see drug dealers living it up, but welfare/unemployment benefits are not the source of their lifestyle. If you don't want drug dealers to be able to live extravagant lifestyles, the thing to do is to legalize drugs, not require a drug test for welfare recipients or whatever. When was the last time you saw a "cigarette dealer" or a "beer dealer"?

EDIT: Again, can we get a source for the numbers in your OP?

[Fectual~]

You're very correct Syme. But some of that bling could be spent feeding themselves and their families instead of me and you doing it is all I was trying to say. And here is the link to the site where I got the article and #'s in my OP. I should have posted it to begin with because it goes into detail about other aspects of welfare reform as well.

www.heritage.org

[Syme]

Okay, this is what I suspected. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank whose main activities are advocating for reductions in government social spending. I'm not saying that means they are liars, but I can't take those numbers ($800B, $10,000 per family, etc.) seriously until I see them from a less partisan and biased source. The Heritage Foundation has a vested interest in overstating the costs here. Also, the link you provided is only the Heritage Foundation's front page, I would like to see the actual article.

As for drug dealers using their drug money to feeding themselves and their families instead of having the taxpayers do it.... I guess it's undesirable, but how much of a fiscal burden is really imposed by welfare payments to people who don't need the money because they have a drug dealer in the family who could support them with his drug money? I suspect this fiscal burden is comparatively low. And it also would not be alleviated by your proposal to make welfare benefits contingent on drug tests. In order to alleviate this burden, you would a test to find out whether someone has a successful drug dealer in their family, not whether they are doing drugs themselves.

EDIT: Found the actual article, http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/wm2287.cfm. It's conclusions seem pretty shaky to me, and your OP was not honest about the issue as it's described in the article. Even accepting the Heritage Foundation's research at face value, they don't say that welfare costs will increase by $800 billion over the next ten years, they say that welfare costs will increase by $800 billion over the next ten years IF currently temporary changes are made permanent. And they provide no reason to believe that these changes will be made permanent, they just say that "history suggests" they will (read: "We want to trash-talk the Democrats so we need some justification for assuming the worst as if it was a given"). They call these "hidden costs" but the reality is that these costs don't exist yet, and the Heritage Foundation is just assuming that Obama/Congress will eventually take the steps needed for these costs to exist at some point in the future.

[simonj]

Since when was drug testing a good way of finding drug dealers anyway?
Drug user/addict =/= drug dealer.
An idea like this will likely cut welfare from drug users/addicts who are more likely to need the money in the first place. Sure, it's not ideal but it's better than those people actually becoming homeless or starving to death because they have no money at all. Then you're just digging people into bigger holes that are harder to get out of.

Testing drug dealers is insignificant because most of them aren't hardened drug users (maybe the odd bit of weed or coke but millions of decent hard working people do that too).

[gismo]

You(OP) personally do not support the drug habits of others. You made it sound like you personally go and pay for their drugs. You don't.

I don't like your figures either, I live in the UK, which is far more socialist than the US. I am currently on benefits, there is no work where I live and I have no money to move. It kills me, I have a degree and it is useless and claiming benefits is the most undignified thing I have ever done. I feel like a crook, but I need help. Eventually I will get a job, a good one and will pay it all back.

Anyhoo, my benefits work out at around £2800 P/A (although I haven't been claming for that long). I live with my mum, and am under 25 so get less. Even still, the top amount is not much. I find it hard to believe that in the much more conservative USA, unemployed people get the amounts you cited.

I know that if I were to get drug tested, I would feel personally offended. Yes, I am grateful for assistance, but it is already undignified and shameful enough without being suspected of being a druggy. So you need to ask, is the problem widespread enough to justify this? I know most of you won't agree with this angle, people on handouts aren't proper people (employment is the entire point of life, so having none renders your life meaningless and without value, like mines) and you will have to forgive them if they wish to be considered human, like it or not it is a trait we all share.

This will not hurt dealers. If anything it will mostly hurt users, people who tend to be at the bottom of the heap. Hurting them to hurt dealers is just cruel. Just because people take illegal drugs doesn't mean they should be punished. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of addicts have some serious issues and may be self medicating on the harder but cheaper stuff. When you hit rock bottom and are in the gutter, it can be very hard to pull yourself out. Drug testing won't make it any easier, and in my opinion the whole point of welfare is to help people so they can eventually learn to help themselves, reducing the need for welfare.

[Seeker of the Form]

I'm not against drug treatment programs I'm against drug dealers who drive better vehicles, live in better houses, and eat better than we do because we allow them an easy ride on the "boo hoo you lost your job" train. I'm not saying it'd be an easy feat but face it- SOMETHING has to be done.

If a dealer is receiving social welfare, chances are they're doing it to make it look like they have an income. Welfare doesn't even come out to enough to make a small investment in said drugs per month, not enough that you could turn a profit anyways. The dealers driving around in nice cars, and living in nice houses, are usually NOT the ones receiving benefits. In my experience, the flashy idiots who trick out their SUVs and wear necklaces worth more than a car are usually middle-class scum bags who think they're hardcore, the other richer people in the game maintain a low profile or launder the money to make it look like legitimate income. Poorer dealers are usually just nickel-and-diming to get food on the table/their fix depending on the individual. Not to say those latter CAN'T get rich doing what they're doing, but generally they're in dire enough straits as is, and usually don't have much sense with money.

Drug testing the people who use the welfare system is totally useless, as far as stopping people from doing drugs. Sure, a physically habituated addict isn't going to be able to stop for a few days without going into withdrawals or failing the test, but anyone with a lick of sense and a moderate habit(the exceptions of PCP and marijuana usage, the former obscenely rare anywhere outside of the ghetto and the latter extremely common, stand due to their lipid solubility) can quit munching/snorting/smoking whatever their drug of choice is for a couple of days to get a nice fat check. And likely will.

The real problem we need to combat with welfare is the people receiving the check, who then work under-the-table and don't report it in the taxes. My folks did this for years, so I'm not unfamiliar with the situation people doing this are in, but it remains that it's blatant abuse of the system. Admittedly, people buying drugs from black market sources removes money from the local economy and what-not, but I don't think it's truly the source problem of our social expenditures.

[Atmosfear]

I agree with the principal of the OP, but agree with everyone else with half a brain that he's really missing the execution.

In principal, I think anyone accepting public money ought to be accountable to the public, just as I am accountable to the bank when I accept its money to purchase a home. I disagree with the sense of entitlement in this country (welfare, healthcare, affirmative action, etc.) I think the OP is correct in that there simply isn't enough accountability.

I, for one, don't want to waste my money drug testing the people on welfare. I'd rather waste my money overhauling the system, decreasing the incentive to have children, and educating people on the steps (and benefits) to eliminate their own need. Of course, I also would like to simply eradicate the communities who have to come to see welfare as an acceptable means of living--programs like this began to get people back on their feet after catastrophe, and throughout the 70s and even 80s, it was shameful to admit to being on welfare/food stamps. Now it's some type of badge of honor, as though being poor and ignorant has become cool. Just fucking die.