[standaman]

i don't know why politicians would be tackling this drug test issue without first taking a look at the whole access (food stamps) abuse.
Easter is coming. Time to buy some easter bunny pez candy on your access card!

The battle should start there, i think.

bingo!

[veizKinquiz]

States seek to link public assistance, drug testing - USATODAY.com

Can't pass a drug test? No more benefits for you.

forwarded that to the company marketing department

i can't open the link for some reason. are any details provided with respect to what type of testing and what drugs?

[TSVIDeo]

Personally, I'd rather see the funds strictly enforced than spend a fortune screening for drugs. Supply them directly with healthy food or greatly restrict their options, cut the checks directly to their landlords.

Drugs are an honest mistake, and addicts know that they're wrong. But there is a large culture - with obvious exceptions - that views the welfare system as a lifestyle with no intention of ever getting off it.
What really unnerves me is seeing the obese mom buying her undoubtedly diabetic kid a Slim Jim, Mountain Dew, and a giant bag of Skittles on an Access card. No one on welfare should be obese. That is unacceptable.

Cut them off at the source, control the funding, and you solve several problems: Recipients don't have cash for drugs, you restrict them to a healthy diet, and you make it less convenient to accept assistance. Europe puts their welfare cases on the side of the highway with a trash bag. We are far too sympathetic.

Best take on this subject I've ever read.

[Edwardthe_third]

AND THEN WHAT ?

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU CUT THEM OFF?

Conservatives never see past thier noses.

I see where you are going with this. However this is no "let them eat cake" situation. You aren't going to get organized overthrow of the ruling class by a bunch of folks just because they were cut off by welfare. If they were intelligent or organized enough to do that, they would have jobs and wouldn't need welfare.

You are right though, that yes there will be crime that comes out of it. But that will be a short-term issue. The current environment of enablement just continues until a stop is put to it. Once that happens there will be social issues...but that will calm down as these people either learn to adapt (e.g. get off welfare) or die off. The long-term cost/benefit of doing nothing here is far worse than the cost/benefit of doing something.

[Deseassaugs]

robot I think this cuts across all state administered programs, which would also include state housing assistance programs; not just unemployment insurance.

haven't read the entire thread, so if someone else raised this i apologize for repeating it:

how about also tacking on some requirement about family size?! don't have a job or can't afford housing or food? how about start off with not having more kids?

[Lolita Palmer]

how about also tacking on some requirement about family size?! don't have a job or can't afford housing or food? how about start off with not having more kids?

I've always wondered about offering money to be "fixed". Guessing that would cause rampant VD amongst the poor population that takes up that offer.

You could go the China route and do an outright ban on having more than one child, but the ACLU would have a field day. And China also has major social issues of their own because of the ban. Law of unintended consequences all over the place here.

That said, requiring that you have no more children after the first time going on welfare sounds like a reasonable start to a policy though...

[mbaueee]

1-child policy is not possible in our society (nor desired, as you elude to societal issues in China). heck, even "tie the tubes for cash" model had a huge backlash in India under Indira Gandhi's late 1970s government, even under her draconian "Emergency" powers. But family planning (counseling? guidance? education? incentives? something!) should be on the table if you're seeking state aid or are on the dole for x-amount of time.

[Kolovorotkes]

[QUOTE=ArcticSplash;359217]States seek to link public assistance, drug testing - USATODAY.com

"Can't pass a drug test? No more benefits for you."

Except, that ain't the way it works. It's a great hede for a knee-jerk reaction, but it ain't the reality. Kentucky & Missouri have Bills (Proposals) written, but not yet acted on. Another reality is that most folks in TANF who also are enrolled in "welfare to work" programs (and there are many), are already drug tested by the non-profit (or other entity that runs that work program).
The other reality is - at least as outlined in Missouri's Proposal - is that the expected first year costs are expected to be $1.9 million and it increases each year after that. And do you for one fleeting moment, even believe that those administrative costs would be recouped by the numbers that might get kicked off welfare? If you believe they will, I have a bridge to sell you. Not too mention the fact that the good old boy network will see to it that the drug testing labs go to more good old boys. So, great knee-jerk stuff, until you look at reality.
And then there is the Constitutional Issue, the ACLU will be on this like "white on rice." And no, I ain't on welfare or any other dole. I'm a 73 year old guy who makes it as best he can on social security.

But, here's a guy that says it much better than I.

One Pissed Off Veteran: Drug Testing for All Welfare Recipients?

[Optosypoeds]

Best take on this subject I've ever read.

Usually Schedule 1 & 2. DEA, Drug Scheduling

[freddyujnf]

Usually Schedule 1 & 2. DEA, Drug Scheduling

OOPs, me bad. That was meant for toxigal who posed the question re what drugs would they test for. Forgive me Tartan69. My 73 years are catching up with me.

[bikersfan]

OOPs, me bad. That was meant for toxigal who posed the question re what drugs would they test for. Forgive me Tartan69. My 73 years are catching up with me.

No worries at all. I think you make a great points about the administrative costs and good old boy network also...definitely a lot of danger in following knee-jerk reactions on things like this.