DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs. Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing. The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse. Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing. "Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Virginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?" Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children. Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals. On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there. A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed. In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that. "It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600. There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance. Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967. "It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next." Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance. Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared. In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before. The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help. But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL. Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said. They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Excellent idea. If people can't get jobs with illegal substances in the system, why should we keep supporting them?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Drugs > Welfare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Drugs > Welfare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Kick there ass out to the curb. Then they may decide to get help or they can go find a kool shopping cart to push around. And just maybe they can hang out at a appliance store and find a new house when they throw out the clothes dryer boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Interesting. I think that would be a good idea, but it will never happen. The government makes too much money selling drugs to these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegasdogg Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Good in theory. But a bad idea. Govt could fook up a wet dream, and I see this as another bottomless pit program where people cost too much to test. Ever had a blood or urine test? They take forever and cost a fortune. You really want your money chasing this down? I don't. Welfare needs reform. We all know that. Obama reversed the reform set by Clinton and I don't know if it will go back in 2 years as he proposes. What I do know is testing people adds millions of dollars to a sick and dying program, clogs up a clogged program, and will not come close to its intended purpose. So no, it is not a good idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Interesting. I think that would be a good idea, but it will never happen. The government makes too much money selling drugs to these people. +1 then putting them in jail for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 +1 then putting them in jail for it. Exactly. You think it is a coincidence that AIDS and crack started to be prominent in the 80's? And rap music? Commercial rap music is an easy way to introduce and formulate the hyper egotistical sensibilities of urban youth. They strive to get rich quick, by in fact selling crack (introduced by the government mind you) to their neighbors and in turn destroying their own community. Not only that, you have the White Christian mothers bitching about 2 Live Crew, which since Elvis, the more kids see parents not liking something, they will rebel and listen to the music. Then you have the White Christian mothers at a 2 Live Crew rally, while their own kids are driving down to the ghetto to buy crack, listening to 2 Live Crew. It's actually quite genius. Regan was a cut throat son of a bitch, but smart. War on Drugs, they mean Sale on Drugs. "Me so horney, me love crack long time" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegasdogg Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 They strive to get rich quick, by in fact selling crack (introduced by the government mind you) You have got to be kidding me? WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 You have got to be kidding me? WTF? Why would I be kidding. Sorry some people think for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegasdogg Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Why would I be kidding. Sorry some people think for themselves. People were freebasing cocaine on their own. Turning it into crack and making it easily accessible was a smart business decision by some really dark criminals. Making crack is not hard, certainly not an enterprise that needs govt assistance. Which makes be suspect you don't think very deeply about what you write. The govt taught people to take inpurities out of cut down cocaine and turn it into a smokable form???? And Meth was made by the govt as well I suppose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandFanForLife Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 this is one of the best ideas i have ever heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 People were freebasing cocaine on their own. Turning it into crack and making it easily accessible was a smart business decision by some really dark criminals. Making crack is not hard, certainly not an enterprise that needs govt assistance. Which makes be suspect you don't think very deeply about what you write. The govt taught people to take inpurities out of cut down cocaine and turn it into a smokable form???? Kind of. Crack was a cocaine over-supply problem. Cartels flooded the market in the late 70's early 80s and they weren't getting the same price anymore for running the same weight/risk. Reduce the supply of product A by turning surplus of A into product B that can be sold also (and is more addictive) is your smart business decision. I'm not so quick to give credit to our federal government for that kind of ingenuity. It'd be nice if they had it, but they dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 People were freebasing cocaine on their own. Turning it into crack and making it easily accessible was a smart business decision by some really dark criminals. Making crack is not hard, certainly not an enterprise that needs govt assistance. Which makes be suspect you don't think very deeply about what you write. The govt taught people to take inpurities out of cut down cocaine and turn it into a smokable form???? And Meth was made by the govt as well I suppose? Wow you really are a dumb shit. Are you sure you went to college. I didn't say they taught people how to make it, lol. They make it and sell it. 1. Establish agency to create drug problem 2. Establish agency to combat drug problem 3. ??? 4. Profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Kind of. Crack was a cocaine over-supply problem. Cartels flooded the market in the late 70's early 80s and they weren't getting the same price anymore for running the same weight/risk. Reduce the supply of product A by turning surplus of A into product B that can be sold also (and is more addictive) is your smart business decision. I'm not so quick to give credit to our federal government for that kind of ingenuity. It'd be nice if they had it, but they dont. Right and the cartels are in cahoots with the US. They need a place to distribute it. And what is the biggest free market, over-endulged country in the world, the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Right and the cartels are in cahoots with the US. Columbia... Well, I wouldn't call it cahoots, but they co-exist. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Well, I wouldn't call it cahoots, but they co-exist. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'd call it cahoots. Columbia produces some major cocaine Legacy, the most in the world, 776 tons of cocaine annually. The second paragraph of the link at the bottom says, "Colombian police chief General Oscar Naranjo told reporters "it's no secret" that his country's agencies have "a very strong alliance with federal agencies of the United States,'' though he did not specify which ones." Ummmm, DEA anyone? The rebels are also drug producers that are competing against the Columbian government. That is all it is about there, the fighting. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 And as acting police chief he would have no interest in reassuring the people he serves & protects that the world's largest superpower is in his corner? So yes, while the US/DEA/whatever are clearly "in cahoots" with local police, they co-exist with the cartels. Each needing the others existence to justify and sustain its own. The reason being it keeps the government occupied with fighting cartels, and not researching the benefits of communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 The reason being it keeps the government occupied with fighting cartels, and not researching the benefits of communism. That's actually a good point. Plus making a couple billion off drugs as a kicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.