[BigBobdd]

'Global War On Drugs Has Failed,' Former World Leaders Say : The Two-Way : NPR

wow, really? they are just now figuring this out?

Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients, State Workers Ignites Debate In Florida : The Two-Way : NPR

When I worked for Florida Department of Law Enforcement I had to take a pre-employment drug screen. i admit, i don't have a huge problem with pre-employment testing. I do have a big problem with random testing without cause. I would have failed post-employment drug testing as i worked with huge amounts of cocaine and heroin and for fun we used to randomly test ourselves just to see what we currently had running around our systems.

as for testing for welfare recipients. yuck.

[VovTortki]

'Global War On Drugs Has Failed,' Former World Leaders Say : The Two-Way : NPR

wow, really? they are just now figuring this out?

Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients, State Workers Ignites Debate In Florida : The Two-Way : NPR

When I worked for Florida Department of Law Enforcement I had to take a pre-employment drug screen. i admit, i don't have a huge problem with pre-employment testing. I do have a big problem with random testing without cause. I would have failed post-employment drug testing as i worked with huge amounts of cocaine and heroin and for fun we used to randomly test ourselves just to see what we currently had running around our systems.

as for testing for welfare recipients. yuck.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this will morph into something like the prison complex this country has. Taxpayers will pay for all the random testing, then they will pay for all the detox programs. There will be a 98% recidivism rate and the Drug testing companies will start to lobby for stricter protocols and and national testing. They will make up all sorts of bogus claims to show how well its working. 30 years from now we will be scratching our heads wondering how stupid our leaders and voter base is.

As far as state employees. What you do on your own time is fine with me so long as it doesn't hurt others. Telling people how to spend their salary isn't fair IMO. And collecting their piss is similar to going through their trash. If I was a gov worker and liked my drugs I would keep a test kit in my car so I would always pass. Coke, Meth and maybe heroin only stay in your system for 3 days from what I read. People might just switch to harder stuff and prescription drugs. The may also get tipped off on the random testings. I doubt this will be very effective either.

[AssinHT]

I'd say the global war on drugs has not only failed, but it has done the exact opposite of what it's goals were. It has spawned higher drug use, more crime, more poverty, more single family homes, and its costing us tons of money for prisons, police, borders etc. I read that we are up to 60 billion a year for fighting drugs.
something like 90% is Marijuana. Not money well spent at all.

I don't understand how this country can have hundreds of thousands of missing children cases, unsolved murder cases etc, each year that aren't pursued that much, yet we can send the national guard to patrol national forrests to search for 3 mexicans growing a bunch of weed in the middle of nowhere.

[flnastyax]

Also,

whats going to happen to the welfare recipients that get kicked off welfare? I would rather keep them on welfare than worry about being shot in the head for
50$. Does anyone know how much the average family receives per year? Putting people in prison might be more expensive. We are already paying other states to take our inmates and we have a few prisons slated to be built. FYI - Prison construction is expensive.

[beepbeet]

Fundamentally I'm against drug testing. But testing people on welfare seems a little backwards. The people at the bottom edge of the social ladder need to be drug tested? It's the people at the top who should be tested. A anyone on a board of directors, or with CEO, VP, COO, CFO, or President attached to their name should have to pass drug testing. These people can do far more harm to society than everyone on Welfare.

[sztc38tg]

Does anyone know how much the average family receives per year?

About $4200.

Supposedly, under the new FL law, if ones fails the drug test, the welfare money will be disbursed to someone else, an auxiliary (family member, social worker), etc, so that the children will still get the benefit.

However, how many people won't even apply for benefits because 1) they can't afford the test (applicants must pay out-of-pocket, and if they pass, will be reimbursed), 2) fear prosecution for current or past drug use (since drugs don't live your system instantly, they can stick around for weeks), or 3) fear Child Protective Services will take their children away if they test positive for drugs?

Agree with a previous poster who said she'd rather drug users still get benefits, rather than have them go out and "acquire" money for their habit through some other means.

[TolleyBoymn]

'Global War On Drugs Has Failed,' Former World Leaders Say : The Two-Way : NPR

wow, really? they are just now figuring this out?

Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients, State Workers Ignites Debate In Florida : The Two-Way : NPR

When I worked for Florida Department of Law Enforcement I had to take a pre-employment drug screen. i admit, i don't have a huge problem with pre-employment testing. I do have a big problem with random testing without cause. I would have failed post-employment drug testing as i worked with huge amounts of cocaine and heroin and for fun we used to randomly test ourselves just to see what we currently had running around our systems.

as for testing for welfare recipients. yuck.

Having read most of these laws, they're written by people who have no idea how drug testing works, and no interest in finding out how. All the programs described (when they are described, PA's proposed law doesn't specify a method, a price tag or a way to fund the program) are laughably ineffective. This isn't about achieving a result, it's about going back home to the district and and bragging to the rednecks and the racists about how you stuck it to them lazy darkies.

BTW, I came to my view that it should all be legalized way back when I was living in Florida. I heard it from my cop buddies who were on the front lines of the War on Drugs every day, and who had come to the conclusion that the WoD was a failure, and something we would never win through law enforcement and prisons. That was over 20 years and a trillion dollars ago. Have we won yet?

[iDzcs7TU]

About $4200.

Supposedly, under the new FL law, if ones fails the drug test, the welfare money will be disbursed to someone else, an auxiliary (family member, social worker), etc, so that the children will still get the benefit.

However, how many people won't even apply for benefits because 1) they can't afford the test (applicants must pay out-of-pocket, and if they pass, will be reimbursed), 2) fear prosecution for current or past drug use (since drugs don't live your system instantly, they can stick around for weeks), or 3) fear Child Protective Services will take their children away if they test positive for drugs?

I think that is the point of the law. Discourage people from negative behavior.

Agree with a previous poster who said she'd rather drug users still get benefits, rather than have them go out and "acquire" money for their habit through some other means. That is actually a bad statement. If the $4200 a year is enough to cover their drug habit as well, obviously the payment is too high then. If the payment is not enough to cover their drug habit, then it isn't preventing drug users from finding other means to pay for the habit.

[BeksTeene]

I think that is the point of the law. Discourage people from negative behavior.

That should be the point of the law. But when you read these laws, they're laughable. The drug-testing regimens are totally ineffective. Worthless. And here's the problem, a real, effective testing program that would have any chance of making a difference would cost thousands of dollars a year per person once you throw in tracking and administrative costs. I just don't see that as fiscally responsible. Look at the proposed law in PA--not only doesn't it specify a cost or a funding method, it doesn't even lay out a testing protocol. It just says "go forth and test!" How is that in any way responsible legislation?

[drycleden]

That should be the point of the law. But when you read these laws, they're laughable. The drug-testing regimens are totally ineffective. Worthless. And here's the problem, a real, effective testing program that would have any chance of making a difference would cost thousands of dollars a year per person once you throw in tracking and administrative costs. I just don't see that as fiscally responsible. Look at the proposed law in PA--not only doesn't it specify a cost or a funding method, it doesn't even lay out a testing protocol. It just says "go forth and test!" How is that in any way responsible legislation?

I wasn't defending it (I personally think they will just be money pits of bureaucracy with minimal net positive effects), but hey, I am all for other states performing the experiment on their dime to prove or disprove the policy - the beauties of federalism. I was merely pointing out that the complaint against the program [negative impacts of doing drugs] would actually be a feature, not a bug. Arguing against it because "it will punish people for doing drugs", isn't going to sway support against since that is what the intent is.

[pE71J5Sw]

Arguing against it because "it will punish people for doing drugs", isn't going to sway support against since that is what the intent is.

See, I have real doubts that's what the intent is. I know that's what the stated intent is, but really? Before you can punish people, you have to actually catch them. To set up a laughably ineffective program to do that just belies the real intent. This is political theater, nothing more.

[Feelundseenna]

Fundamentally I'm against drug testing. But testing people on welfare seems a little backwards. The people at the bottom edge of the social ladder need to be drug tested? It's the people at the top who should be tested. A anyone on a board of directors, or with CEO, VP, COO, CFO, or President attached to their name should have to pass drug testing. These people can do far more harm to society than everyone on Welfare.

If they're getting taxpayer dollars, or at least if that's the primary source of the company income, you betcha. Government workers? Sure, why not. Test 'em all.

[vipBrooriErok]

If they're getting taxpayer dollars, or at least if that's the primary source of the company income, you betcha. Government workers? Sure, why not. Test 'em all.

Okay, I'll bite. Any drug testing program that is any way meaningful is massively expensive. Pay for it.

[didrexx]

Pay for welfare recipient's testing out of same funds. It's an administrative cost.

[whatisthebluepill]

Pay for welfare recipient's testing out of same funds. It's an administrative cost.

That's an option. But at what cost. Any testing program that's not a sham will cost thousands. Without a equivalent increase in funding, taking it out of their funds could reduce each recipient's money by 15 to 25 percent (just spitballing based on numbers I've seen on what recipients get, but it's in the ballpark). Do you really think that's helpful? Those aid recipients who don't do drugs are going to take a huge hit, for nothing. Sorry, but I can't see that as fiscally responsible.

[Kingerix]

Here's the (very approximate) math: According to the ACLU, which isn't exactly friendly towards testing welfare recipients, the per-test cost is $42. Let's double that, since it's the government. The average monthly benefit is $372, or almost $4500 a year. That's less than 2% of benefits that would be spent on an annual test. That's not horrible, even though that works out to $400m a year annually.

But there should be at least some savings from drug abusers kicked out of the system. Also, potentially there will be less law enforcement dollars having to combat what is essentially taxpayer-funded drug abuse. At least that lessens the burden.

[DrKirkNoliss]

If they're getting taxpayer dollars, or at least if that's the primary source of the company income, you betcha. Government workers? Sure, why not. Test 'em all.

while we are at it, let's test everyone receiving unemployment benefits or social security.

drug testing keeps me employed and the main source of income for the private company i work for is tax payer money. but i'm not a federal employee, so i guess i'm safe from random drug testing!

don't forget to take into account the cost of confirmatory testing, legal fees when someone decides to fight, administrative costs to review the drug tests to determine if the drugs found in the system were legally prescribed. and we're gonna need more government certified laboratories. they probably will have to get SAMHSA certification. so we'll have to pay for that too.

[cargo_brad]

Here's the (very approximate) math: According to the ACLU, which isn't exactly friendly towards testing welfare recipients, the per-test cost is $42. Let's double that, since it's the government. The average monthly benefit is $372, or almost $4500 a year. That's less than 2% of benefits that would be spent on an annual test. That's not horrible, even though that works out to $400m a year annually.

That's because the system you describe is a joke. Any idiot can beat it. I said meaningful. You know....something that will work? Real drug testing, that actually stands a chance of catching drug abusers involves regular testing, and random testing. Real random testing involves tracking, which creates a bureaucracy all its own, and that's not cheap. The single test system you describe would be a total waste of money. What's the point of that?

[wCYvMKAc]

All that sucks, but there aren't a lot of other options. I'm all for background checking people and denying benefits outright to people convicted of drug crimes. That's far, far cheaper, and probably the closest to an infallible system. But, bar that, what other options to handle drug abusers? What other option is there to prevent our taxpayer dollars to go help druggies? I'm open to anything.

[Figelac]

I'm all for background checking people and denying benefits outright to people convicted of drug crimes. That's far, far cheaper, and probably the closest to an infallible system.

That's fair, and workable. I'm not for it, but at least it's doesn't involve spending lots of good, scarce money to achieve the result.

But, bar that, what other options to handle drug abusers? What other option is there to prevent our taxpayer dollars to go help druggies? I'm open to anything. Honestly, I don't mind my tax dollars going to drug abusers. I don't think it's that much money or that great a problem. We've got far bigger financial problems to deal with the a small subset of people spending a small part of the small amount of money we give them to get high. I really don't care what they do. I just don't want to totally waste money on a program that will have no effect whatsoever.