Bill requiring drug testing of welfare recipients passes House
- Thread starter NicoleLJ
- Start date
seems reasonable to me..
Welfare shouldn't be for people who spend all their money on drugs so need help buying food.
its for people who really need help buying necessities.
Not people who would rather buy other things with their money (wether it be drugs or other unnecessary entertainment stuff) and then just go to the government for help with food.
and if people abusing drugs have children, hopefully this testing will help people find out so the kids can be placed in a safer drug-free environment and get the help they need
Welfare shouldn't be for people who spend all their money on drugs so need help buying food.
its for people who really need help buying necessities.
Not people who would rather buy other things with their money (wether it be drugs or other unnecessary entertainment stuff) and then just go to the government for help with food.
and if people abusing drugs have children, hopefully this testing will help people find out so the kids can be placed in a safer drug-free environment and get the help they need
Another way to look at it is there will be huge negatives as well. I see torn apart families, the homeless rates going up fast, I see crime rates going up because this will not stop people from doing drugs. They will just resort to other means to get it. And not all people who do drugs are negectful parents. What about people who do canibus? I know people who do that and they are in no way negectful parents. I see a whole lot of negatives in this really. Yeah the rosey picture is that people will not get "free" money to pay for their drug use. But what will be the end result from that? What will the future from that law look like if you take off the rosey glasses? I agree that people that are doing hard drugs like Meth and so on need the help to stop and should not be doing it esspecially with kids in the home. But this law is painting everyone in the same light and I do not see it having the rosey outcome that some are hoping for.
You have to have a drug test for most all jobs that I know of, some of them even do random drug testing. If you are getting a "paycheck" from welfare you should have to pass a drug test just as well as if it was your job.
If you are a GOOD parent, you will be responsible enough to NOT smoke weed so that you can go collect your welfare check. It's not about being "neglectful" its about growing up and putting your kids needs before your own wants. Just because smoking weed doesn't cause you to abuse or neglect your children, if you are BUYING weed, you are spending money on something you WANT as opposed to your child's NEEDS. Food, shelter, comes FIRST. PERIOD. Why should the "government" provide these people with money to feed their kids just so they can go out and buy booze or weed or whatever? When its your money you go out and earn, its your business what you do with it. But when the government is handing out money that WE DON'T HAVE, its a big deal where that money goes and what it's paying for.
If you are a GOOD parent, you will be responsible enough to NOT smoke weed so that you can go collect your welfare check. It's not about being "neglectful" its about growing up and putting your kids needs before your own wants. Just because smoking weed doesn't cause you to abuse or neglect your children, if you are BUYING weed, you are spending money on something you WANT as opposed to your child's NEEDS. Food, shelter, comes FIRST. PERIOD. Why should the "government" provide these people with money to feed their kids just so they can go out and buy booze or weed or whatever? When its your money you go out and earn, its your business what you do with it. But when the government is handing out money that WE DON'T HAVE, its a big deal where that money goes and what it's paying for.
I agree that if you are on welfare that the money should be used wisely but try explaining that to an addict. I was married to one and lived with one for several years. They do not care what they have to do, who they throw away or what they have to give up to get the drugs or what ever else their addiction tells them to get. Which is why I am saying that in the long term, and the short term this is going to have more negative effects then positive. The homeless rate will go up, crime rate will go up, families will be torn apart, children sent into foster programs that are already stretched to the max, I could go on and on.
Something needs to be done. I will agree with that. But kicking someone off assistance for 6 months till they get help is not the answer and will not have the outcome they are hoping for.
Something needs to be done. I will agree with that. But kicking someone off assistance for 6 months till they get help is not the answer and will not have the outcome they are hoping for.
I agree 100%.:hail:The way our welfare system is now, is wasting a ton of money. They need to tighten it up and be more judicial about who is getting our tax dollars, how and why...what they're doing with it. Absolutely! Why should you or I pay for someone to buy drugs? If they're really in "need," unable to work, then it should be monitored...that it's going for shelter and food. The cost of implimentation of this monitoring, if done correctly won't out spend the amount of waste on welfare that is currently astronomical.
yes it's sad... and it probably is going to get worse before it gets better... but that's no reason to just let things be. To just leave things they way they are and give away money to drug addicts is enabling them.
it's sad that those people who are addicts will probably land on the streets before they ever get help but it was THEIR choice to make. You can't save people from making stupid decisions or they never learn anything. No one is going to get help when they can be an addict and get money to support that habit. Bad decisions have to hurt or why would we ever change them?
it's not rose colored glasses. I understand what this means for drug addicts... however we can't just excuse their behaviour just because they are "sick" The country can't keep funding their habits and rewarding peoples bad choices.
welfare is for people who have fallen on hard times... not to supply a habit.
it's sad that those people who are addicts will probably land on the streets before they ever get help but it was THEIR choice to make. You can't save people from making stupid decisions or they never learn anything. No one is going to get help when they can be an addict and get money to support that habit. Bad decisions have to hurt or why would we ever change them?
it's not rose colored glasses. I understand what this means for drug addicts... however we can't just excuse their behaviour just because they are "sick" The country can't keep funding their habits and rewarding peoples bad choices.
welfare is for people who have fallen on hard times... not to supply a habit.
Besides the cost factor that I am also wondering about.... I think it might be a good thing.
Now, IMO, a responsible parent doesn't use weed in the first place. This is not about my personal stance on the question if it should be illegal or not- fact is, it IS illegal here (if you have a medical prescription it is obviously a different scenario) and it WILL get you in trouble with the law. Why would you risk a prison sentence or the chance to get a job later down the road with a long rap sheet ESPECIALLY as a parent?
In my ideal world, you would give every welfare recipient, who tests positive for drugs, a chance to get clean with the option to go to a treatment facility... kinda like a one shot deal.
I am all for helping people who are down on their luck or got a bad hand in life, I really do. I am not against welfare, but I think controlling it a bit more would be good.
The honest family if people in need are not going to protest- it is the abusers who need to be deterred.
Now, IMO, a responsible parent doesn't use weed in the first place. This is not about my personal stance on the question if it should be illegal or not- fact is, it IS illegal here (if you have a medical prescription it is obviously a different scenario) and it WILL get you in trouble with the law. Why would you risk a prison sentence or the chance to get a job later down the road with a long rap sheet ESPECIALLY as a parent?
In my ideal world, you would give every welfare recipient, who tests positive for drugs, a chance to get clean with the option to go to a treatment facility... kinda like a one shot deal.
I am all for helping people who are down on their luck or got a bad hand in life, I really do. I am not against welfare, but I think controlling it a bit more would be good.
The honest family if people in need are not going to protest- it is the abusers who need to be deterred.
Hmm I am conflicted. Drug addiction is concidered a disease. Some very interesting studies are showing that it is far more complicated than thought, and that treating it as a disease is quite successful.
I can understand a company not being able to deal with the liability of someone on drugs, just as I had a friend let go who was working in a warehouse and started having seizures (almost exactly like Fran's). They just couldn't deal with the liability.
Now if someone was in treatment but couldn't work yet at a regular job I am ok with them getting welfare. Same as I am who is taking chemo (and you can argue that people often smoke and do things that greatly increase the chance of cancer too). Now if the person was not in treatment, then I think they should not get welfare.
Question though.. how do you think people with drug problems are supposed to eat and sleep and turn their life around. If they don't get help do they cost the state more via criminal activities, policing, court and jail costs?
I can understand a company not being able to deal with the liability of someone on drugs, just as I had a friend let go who was working in a warehouse and started having seizures (almost exactly like Fran's). They just couldn't deal with the liability.
Now if someone was in treatment but couldn't work yet at a regular job I am ok with them getting welfare. Same as I am who is taking chemo (and you can argue that people often smoke and do things that greatly increase the chance of cancer too). Now if the person was not in treatment, then I think they should not get welfare.
Question though.. how do you think people with drug problems are supposed to eat and sleep and turn their life around. If they don't get help do they cost the state more via criminal activities, policing, court and jail costs?
Y'know, every argument against this bill is self-defeating. To suggest that there's going to be a raise in crime, more homeless people, more children will be dumped into the foster system, et cetera et cetera, is to suggest that a LARGE MAJORITY on welfare is doing drugs and they're going to get caught with this and lose their welfare checks. If that's true, the welfare system on the whole should just be ditched since it apparently just pays for druggies to go get drugs.
There's plenty of people out there cheating the welfare system and it's not all so they can go buy drugs. Unfortunately we don't have a "you say your children are starving and yet you just went out and bought a big screen TV and an XBOX??" test. I also don't think we're going to see a huge spike in crime because people who are so addicted but were managing to keep themselves in check before will now suddenly fly off the deep end - if they are so heavily addicted they're going to start robbing people and such for their drug money, the pittance they were getting from welfare wasn't much of a drop in the bucket to that level of addiction. That kind of addiction is above and beyond and likely a very small minority.
I don't really see this being hugely successful at weeding out a bunch of people who are abusing welfare, but I still think it should be done.
There's plenty of people out there cheating the welfare system and it's not all so they can go buy drugs. Unfortunately we don't have a "you say your children are starving and yet you just went out and bought a big screen TV and an XBOX??" test. I also don't think we're going to see a huge spike in crime because people who are so addicted but were managing to keep themselves in check before will now suddenly fly off the deep end - if they are so heavily addicted they're going to start robbing people and such for their drug money, the pittance they were getting from welfare wasn't much of a drop in the bucket to that level of addiction. That kind of addiction is above and beyond and likely a very small minority.
I don't really see this being hugely successful at weeding out a bunch of people who are abusing welfare, but I still think it should be done.
I"m torn on this.
I like the idea, but at the same time, I don't like drug testing for any job. I dont' like the credit checks, the invasion into your life etc.
I like the old way, interview, if you like you hire, if you don't, you don't, and if they do their job well, you keep them. If they don't, you fire them. people should be able to have a life outside of work, without everything affecting work.
Teachers getting fired for working at hooters, a 20 year employee that has always had good reviews and is an upstanding individual, but smokes a bit of weed, now loses his job, if you have bad credit for any number of reason you don't even get an interview. Regardless if it was an awful illness in the family or just bad money managment that caused it.
anyway, enough of that.
Welfare also does some good. Besides helping the families that really do need it and really do use it for what it is intended. there are a lot of areas that not only support the people getting it, but the people that work their too. If that all goes away, it isn't going to help. It's hard to really explain it, but it's what will happen.
But at the same time, it's obvious that the current way is not making things better. It's not right when some entire communities are dependent on gov't checks.
I like the idea, but at the same time, I don't like drug testing for any job. I dont' like the credit checks, the invasion into your life etc.
I like the old way, interview, if you like you hire, if you don't, you don't, and if they do their job well, you keep them. If they don't, you fire them. people should be able to have a life outside of work, without everything affecting work.
Teachers getting fired for working at hooters, a 20 year employee that has always had good reviews and is an upstanding individual, but smokes a bit of weed, now loses his job, if you have bad credit for any number of reason you don't even get an interview. Regardless if it was an awful illness in the family or just bad money managment that caused it.
anyway, enough of that.
Welfare also does some good. Besides helping the families that really do need it and really do use it for what it is intended. there are a lot of areas that not only support the people getting it, but the people that work their too. If that all goes away, it isn't going to help. It's hard to really explain it, but it's what will happen.
But at the same time, it's obvious that the current way is not making things better. It's not right when some entire communities are dependent on gov't checks.
Release the Hounds I 100% agree with you.
Personally I like one persons idea I read somewhere. That if they test positive for drugs that instead of being kicked off of the welfare program that they would be offered rehab instead as a one time offer. They stay on welfare and get help. No losing their home, family and so on. If they refuse then take them off of it. But give an alternative first instead of removing them right away and telling them to come back clean in 6 months.
Personally I like one persons idea I read somewhere. That if they test positive for drugs that instead of being kicked off of the welfare program that they would be offered rehab instead as a one time offer. They stay on welfare and get help. No losing their home, family and so on. If they refuse then take them off of it. But give an alternative first instead of removing them right away and telling them to come back clean in 6 months.
Drug tests for jobs are inconvenient, but necessary imho.
When a company hires you, they spend a lot of money. They need to train you, pay for any benefits, etc, etc. So it makes sense that they would drug test you before you were hired. What if a month down the line they realize you have an issue with drugs and it's interferring with your work? They could've saved a huge headache if they had known before hand.
For instance, when I was in college I worked as an admin for an accounting office, and they hired an office manager with a drug issue. He commited worker's comp fraud to get pain killers, and then also lied and said he had cancer. It was a HUGE mess and he ruined so many things and costed the company so much money.
Why should you get tax payer money without taking a drug test? WHY should my money go towards something (especially an illegal something) you don't need?
When a company hires you, they spend a lot of money. They need to train you, pay for any benefits, etc, etc. So it makes sense that they would drug test you before you were hired. What if a month down the line they realize you have an issue with drugs and it's interferring with your work? They could've saved a huge headache if they had known before hand.
For instance, when I was in college I worked as an admin for an accounting office, and they hired an office manager with a drug issue. He commited worker's comp fraud to get pain killers, and then also lied and said he had cancer. It was a HUGE mess and he ruined so many things and costed the company so much money.
Why should you get tax payer money without taking a drug test? WHY should my money go towards something (especially an illegal something) you don't need?
To play devils advocate... should companies hire heavy smokers? Cancer meds are expensive and they pay the benefits? Or what about young women? I mean they have a high risk of wanting to start families... you hire them, train them and then BAM there they go needing maternity leave and you need to hire a temp...
The other thing is there is drug use and then there is drug use. I myself don't use drugs but I know MANY people who have very stable lives, are very responsible in their jobs etc but smoke up every now and then.
Test don't test for how much a person uses I believe. For example alcoholism is a serious issue people face. But does that mean someone who knocked one back at the bar shouldn't have a job? Now before you say but that different pot is illegal.... Should we fire everyone who speeds on their way to or from work? How about if they speed on vacation?
I can understand liability. If a company can get sued because of an employee's issue, be they a drug related disease or regular disease. I don't think a company should be dictating what people do in their off time.
The other thing is there is drug use and then there is drug use. I myself don't use drugs but I know MANY people who have very stable lives, are very responsible in their jobs etc but smoke up every now and then.
Test don't test for how much a person uses I believe. For example alcoholism is a serious issue people face. But does that mean someone who knocked one back at the bar shouldn't have a job? Now before you say but that different pot is illegal.... Should we fire everyone who speeds on their way to or from work? How about if they speed on vacation?
I can understand liability. If a company can get sued because of an employee's issue, be they a drug related disease or regular disease. I don't think a company should be dictating what people do in their off time.