Welfare recipeints to get drug testing!

[lisa03wilson]

One other point I would like to make is that the welfare system has made it MUCH too easy for young un-wed mothers to collect a check, than to marry the daddy of their baby.

I knew a girl who had a baby with an abusive man. Should she have stayed with him when he hurt her and the baby? NO! but what could she do then? If she had gotten a minimum wage job she would not have made enough to pay her rent (and it's wasn't a nice apartment, it was the cheapest she could get) and pay for child care. Luckly she had a good family to fall back on, but what if she hadn't?

back to the drug testing question, I have to be tested for my work, and it's not a big deal. I don't even see how someone could be embarassed by it, but if you are, remember... no one is forcing you to be on welfare. It is a very helpful thing for many people, but it is not mandatory. If you are so strongly opposed to having a drug test, then don't get on welfare. With drug testing, the welfare system could be improved because less money would be used to support addictions. The money that was being used for drugs could go to something else, better childcare or scholarships for recipiants who aren't on drugs. IMHO anyway.

 

[wildernesse]

MSBS:

Why test if people "have been" using, if they're not intoxicated at work? If they're not intoxicated at work, then what they do in their own time is up to them.

I work at UGA as an admin assist for a professor. I have also worked at a law firm and for a cultural resource management firm (archaeology) without being subjected to drug tests of any kind and currently am not subject to drug tests. I've worked in a corporate setting and the drones that populate most of the high-rises haven't impressed me--therefore my conclusion that an intoxicated person who was marginally performing wouldn't really be out of place in most corporations. (Sorry, I'm a snob about being intelligent and productive--when I've been in those situations I work on my pride in between bouts of boredom and head-banging frustration. )

You are obviously a good, responsible supervisor. As I was told earlier, it is naive to think that everyone is as responsible as you are.

--tibac

 

[smurfy2day]

Originally posted by lisa03wilson
I knew a girl who had a baby with an abusive man. Should she have stayed with him when he hurt her and the baby? NO! but what could she do then? If she had gotten a minimum wage job she would not have made enough to pay her rent (and it's wasn't a nice apartment, it was the cheapest she could get) and pay for child care. Luckly she had a good family to fall back on, but what if she hadn't?

back to the drug testing question, I have to be tested for my work, and it's not a big deal. I don't even see how someone could be embarassed by it, but if you are, remember... no one is forcing you to be on welfare. It is a very helpful thing for many people, but it is not mandatory. If you are so strongly opposed to having a drug test, then don't get on welfare. With drug testing, the welfare system could be improved because less money would be used to support addictions. The money that was being used for drugs could go to something else, better childcare or scholarships for recipiants who aren't on drugs. IMHO anyway.

 

You just said yourself, no one is forcing you to be on welfare... why should your friend be any different? And according to some here, myself included, you can make MUCH more on minimum wage, than you can with a $300.00 monthly welfare check.

Again, hand these people scholarships to trade schools and colleges, rather than more money for having children out of wedlock, and not working. Many, many of these people sit on their behinds all day, because it's easier than going out and getting a job. Seriously. And, some can get "punished" for working too many hours. That is wrong as well. When someone gets punished for working at a job and doing something to better his/her self, the system is very obviously flawed.

 

And wildernesse, YES, I ask where the Daddy is. Studies have shown that many of the dads, offer to marry the mom, and in 6 out of 10 cases, they are refused, because it is easier for the young mother to get money for school/ house/ car, whatever. This is some seriously flawed thinking here.

 

Back to the original issue... this is MY tax money here, and I want to know that i's not going into someone's nose or arm. There is NOTHING wrong with testing. And since they don't have jobs, what they do in their "spare time" is 24 hours a day, and yes it does matter that they are doing drugs. I wouldn't buy them with any of my money, and to be quite frank, I don't want my government buying drugs with my money, which in a sense is what they're doing!

 

[lisa03wilson]

You just said yourself, no one is forcing you to be on welfare... why should your friend be any different? And according to some here, myself included, you can make MUCH more on minimum wage, than you can with a $300.00 monthly welfare check.

I don't get what you are saying. I agree that my friend should have been required to do drug testing. and I don't know where you get 300$ a month from, but she got more than that. If working a minimum wage job would give her less money than what she required for child care, but being on welfare would give her the money she needed, why shouldn't she get on welfare while she took secratarial classes or whatever?

Again, hand these people scholarships to trade schools and colleges, rather than more money for having children out of wedlock, and not working. Many, many of these people sit on their behinds all day, because it's easier than going out and getting a job. Seriously. And, some can get "punished" for working too many hours. That is wrong as well. When someone gets punished for working at a job and doing something to better his/her self, the system is very obviously flawed.

That's what I was saying. Instead of giving welfare to people who then use the money for drugs, take that money and use it to help those recipents who aren't on drugs to get better jobs. My point was that my friend was not on drugs and without her family she never would have been able to get off welfare. someone in her position but without a good family might never be able to pay for the training they need to get a job to support their family becuase they don't have the money for it. They cant get the money for the training because they don't have training to get a job that will make enough money to pay for the training that they need. It's a big circle for many people. If you take money away from those who are useing drugs and abusing the system than you now have more money to split between less people, and can provide them with a way to get themselves back into the workforce.

I don't understand why you thought I was opposed to you, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

 

[wildernesse]

Studies have shown that many of the dads, offer to marry the mom, and in 6 out of 10 cases, they are refused, because it is easier for the young mother to get money for school/ house/ car, whatever.

You know, I'm going to have to ask for a link to those studies. Thanks

--tibac

 

[Dewjunkie]

I am a little sad I am coming in so late on this one, this is some good ol' down home debatin'....wee heeee

Anyway, as far as drug testing for welfare, I think the government should reserve the right to know whether or not a welfare recipient has a tendency towards drugs. I don't think a positive result should automatically disqualify someone, but should require further investigation, and help if needed. Welfare in principle is a good program, but is subject to abuse, and more often than not a victim of it. People think it is their right to turn to the government and ask for assistance, but when the government asks for a little accountability in return, they get mad and cry foul.

When I worked for the Postal Service, I delivered mail to "The Projects" in Texas City, TX. Without fail on the 3rd of each month a lot of people would be on their doorsteps asking me where their check was. Too many of them were wearing Tommy Hilfiger and Air Jordans for me to believe they really needed the welfare. That's some good money management that can make a welfare check pay bills, feed the kids AND afford a $100 pair of shoes and $60 jeans. Welfare gets abused, and I don't think that drug testing would solve the problem, but it couldn't hurt.

I am one that has been supportive of drug testing because if you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem supplying a sample. I had to be tested in the military, the Postal Service, and now the National Park Service. It doesn't bother me any, because usually I have to go anyway...

 

[wildernesse]

Dewjunkie,

I always enjoy your posts, even if they don't agree with my opinion or position on an issue.

I have a problem with denying people government benefits--once you're denied welfare or government housing, where do you go? It's not as if living in the projects or taking a handout is Fifth Avenue living. And yes, I think that government programs are abused--and I don't know how I would "police" the system better.

I think that a problem with many people who never seem to find their way out of dependence is that they've never been given the tools to break free--or maybe life is too hard today to think about tomorrow. Maybe they've never understood what is so great about living differently. I don't know, I've not been there.

I'm against drug testing because I think that if your drug habit is not interferring with your work ability, then what you do on your own time is your own business. The moment you bring an addiction to work, then they have a right to be concerned and take measures to ensure that their company is protected from that. Of course, I would like to live in a society whose members are healthy enough that they are free from addictions in the first place, and free from abuse of drugs. I would rather build and work toward living in that society than simply police people for something that they might have done, sometime, somewhere.

Although when I worked for a bank, I had to pass a drug test too, and didn't pitch a fit over it (at the time, I was still a nice conservtive Republican). Drug tests aren't the reason I don't use drugs--and I'm sure no one else is inhibited by them either.

--tibac

 

[Dewjunkie]

wildernesse, likewise, it's a pleasure to discuss issues with someone who can post intelligently, regardless of viewpoint.

I agree with your statement about dependence, for too long now society in general has taken a lazy approach to working and it is apparent in the lethargy in the majority of the workforce today. Too many have taken on an attitude of "someone owes me" instead of trying to make things happen for themselves. If it's easier to sit back and collect a free check or get rich by suing a corporation because they didn't tell you that coffee is hot, why wouldn't you. You would, unless you have values or self-pride to motivate you otherwise. Unfortunately, not enough people have that, most through no fault of their own. It's just the lazy American attitude that is becoming epidemically popular.

I was on Unemployment for one month after I got out of the Navy and was moving and trying to find a job. We used WIC for a while because we had two children on formula and were a single income family in an expensive place to live. I have used the programs, and support them fully. I do not support abusing them. If drug testing is going to help in any way stop the abuse, then I have to support it. I know the real solutions to the problems are accountability and self-motivation, but unfortunately, they don't come in that brown envelope with the check.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by wildernesse
MSBS:

Why test if people "have been" using, if they're not intoxicated at work? If they're not intoxicated at work, then what they do in their own time is up to them.

I was using the context of the thread topic-- checking if welfare recipients are using drugs as opposed to workplace use of intoxicants.  I guess I need to stick to one subject at a time. 

 

[Tami]

Originally posted by LilAryanAngelHeart
Where's the baby's father???

Skye Leigh

Hmmm.  That's a hard one.  I cried myself to sleep many a night trying to figure out the answer to that question.  Eventually, I just quit trying.  There were times when I had no way of knowing whether my dad was dead or alive.  Sometimes dads just walk out and don't even care to look back.  Should these dads be supporting their own kids instead of Big Brother taking up their slack? Yeah, but we don't live in a perfect world where all daddys make sure their children are fed and live in a warm house.  Ya know what my dad told my Mom in a dispute over child support?  He said, "I'll see you in the streets and on welfare."  What a guy, don'tcha think? Much to his dismay, we didn't end up in the streets and on welfare.  My mom did try to get food stamps but they wouldn't let her have any because we had too nice of a car.  They said she could sell it and buy food with that money, but then how would she have gotten to her minimum wage job or taken us to a doctor?  She wasn't even paying for the stupid thing anyway.  My dad was ordered to pay the car payments on it but he didn't even though he was making over $100,000/year.  It eventually got repoed just like our house did because dad wouldn't make the payments like he was ordered to in the divorce decree.  After the car got repoed, my Mom coulda qualified for food stamps but since they didn't want to help her before, she took on a "forget you, jerks" attitude.  So we ate a lot of mac and cheese and lived outta the church food pantry.  Thank God that was there.  We didn't eat the most nutritious stuff be we made do.  My sister and I were too young to care about nutrition anyway.  We thought mac and cheese was great.  My husband and I don't mind our tax dollars going for people who could survive on mac and cheese so they could eat somewhat more nutritiously though.

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Originally posted by wildernesse
MSBS:

Why test if people "have been" using, if they're not intoxicated at work? If they're not intoxicated at work, then what they do in their own time is up to them.

But how would they be able to distinguish who's getting high at home and who's getting high before work?? There has to be testing to discourage people from getting high at all when they have to work. No one should drink or get high on a weekday or week night anyway because it stays in your system and still impairs your judgement. And also some addicts can learn to hide thier addiction very well as far as behaviour and not *looking like they are high but they are still high as a kite and their judgement is impaired drastically. They are called functional alchoholics and drug addicts. So testing is necessary to discourage addiction like that in the work place.

Originally posted by wildernesse

I work at UGA as an admin assist for a professor. I have also worked at a law firm and for a cultural resource management firm (archaeology) without being subjected to drug tests of any kind and currently am not subject to drug tests. I've worked in a corporate setting and the drones that populate most of the high-rises haven't impressed me--therefore my conclusion that an intoxicated person who was marginally performing wouldn't really be out of place in most corporations. (Sorry, I'm a snob about being intelligent and productive--when I've been in those situations I work on my pride in between bouts of boredom and head-banging frustration. )

--tibac

I'm surprised they let you get by without testing you even in those fields because decisions are still being made by you that can cause a lot of problems if the person is high while they are working. People are not just tested for drugs on dangerous jobs, people get drug test for working at Mcdonalds or department stores.


Skye Leigh

 

[smurfy2day]

Originally posted by wildernesse
You know, I'm going to have to ask for a link to those studies. Thanks

--tibac

 

Can't link this one, it's in a book.

 

I can however, quote the page, reference, and all the book information if you'd like.

 

[wildernesse]

There has to be testing to discourage people from getting high at all when they have to work.

I don't use illegal drugs and never have. I don't drink or smoke. I don't do these things because I feel that they are harmful to my health--NOT because I might be tested for them. Responsible people don't come to work intoxicated in the first place. If you have obviously intoxicated people at work, they probably aren't responsible and will be dealt with. What if someone shows up drunk? Most people don't test for that, and yet you don't show up to work drunk, do you?

And also some addicts can learn to hide thier addiction very well as far as behaviour and not *looking like they are high but they are still high as a kite and their judgement is impaired drastically. They are called functional alchoholics and drug addicts.

However, if someone is functional while intoxicated, then they are probably performing at least as well as the worst non-intoxicated people on the staff--otherwise, they're not functional. This says something about the average workforce. If you can't tell that the person is intoxicated through their work, why not let them work while intoxicated if they're as good as the dumbest people who you let work for you every day.

I wasn't tested in those jobs (and currently) because those employers assumed that I was a responsible person who would deal with the consequences of my actions--they didn't need to hold out some additional test of my worthiness that had nothing to do with my job performance. Personal freedom and personal responsibility--I don't need, and never have needed, a corporate watchman to make sure I was making the best choices in my life. However, drug testing isn't even to see whether the person is high at the time of the test, it's to see if the person has been using drugs--on the job or not.

Why does a department store clerk need to be tested to see if that person uses drugs? Why can't he be held to good work standards--like punctuality, productivity, good customer service? If he can perform well while intoxicated or after using intoxicants off the clock, who cares if he does? I don't. I would rather be served well by someone who might smoke pot on the weekend (and it doesn't interfere with his job), than by some gum-popping, airhead who can't tell the difference between Waterford and plastic.

--tibac

P.S. Yes, smurfy, I would like to have the citation from the book where you got your information. Thanks!

 

[Dewjunkie]

OK, a little personal experience.....gather 'round, kiddies.

A dispatcher got fired from our agency a few months ago because she was an alchoholic, and it repeatedly interfered with her job. Rangers didn't trust her and didn't feel safe when she was on the radio. She hid her condition from the upper echelon well enough that when complaints rose about her they were written off as "Rangers picking on her" or "her style is different". Of course, those of us that worked with her knew her lack of performance was because she was lit most of the time. She got caught by the local Police Department at her house with drugs. Admin put her on probation with a "last chance agreement". Two weeks later, she was found passed out drunk on her console. She had fooled all the right people into believing she could function at work, but in the end she lost because she couldn't control herself. Fortunately, no one died as a result of her ineptitude.

The point of my little memoir is this: When she got hired, drug testing was not mandatory, even for law enforcement personnel. Had it been, and had she popped positive, it could have sent warning signals to the hiring commitee to look at her more in depth. Turns out she had the same types of problems at a previous job, but no one found out until it was too late. It doesn't matter how well someone thinks they function at work, if they get away with coming to work drunk or high, they'll do it until they crash. In my profession, that crash could easily kill someone. If drug testing can weed out people who have a tendency to use drugs, and can avoid that crash, then it can only be a good thing.

I have seen a perfectly functioning drunk that blew a .53 BAC. He should have been comatose, if not dead, but he stood there talking to us like he hadn't had a drink. He failed the Field Sobriety Tests miserably. Even though he seemed to be functioning well. I don't think I'd want a guy that puts away that much sauce driving my kids home from school or trying to aim a firehose at my burning house.

 

[Kiwi]

wow, I don't know of any job in my country that you have to take a drug test for, not even to be an MP (member of parliment). As for those who are knocking the welfare, I see that you are young and maybe idealistic. Unless it's happened to you I wouldn't be making to many comments. For example studies also show that, despite laws to stop it, if you are from a minority group (ie, not white), speak a certain way (ie, with an accent from a some other country) you are a lot less likely to be employed. I also read of a study done by an anthropologist (since that is my major for my degree) and she spent a year working for different fast food resturants such as McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut etc. She concluded that it is almost impossible for a single person to live off the wage, and would be impossible for someone with a family. Apart from the fact that it is massive exploitation, very hard work and does not help you move up the job ladder at all. My mum is on welfare, dad left her after 27 years of marriage, she is 55, just after that she had to have an operation for breast cancer which has limited her ablility to lift her right arm, so know she can't do the care giving job she was doing at the hospital. It doesn't matter what re-training she does, no one will hire her because she is to old, what is she surposed to do? She spent her life bringing up her kids and being a pastors wife, now she's left in learch. Life doesn't always work out the way you want it and believe me, after being turned down for 50 job applications (as happened to my husband) your self esteem just isn't what it used to be.

 

[smurfy2day]

Originally posted by Kiwi
wow, I don't know of any job in my country that you have to take a drug test for, not even to be an MP (member of parliment). As for those who are knocking the welfare, I see that you are young and maybe idealistic. Unless it's happened to you I wouldn't be making to many comments. For example studies also show that, despite laws to stop it, if you are from a minority group (ie, not white), speak a certain way (ie, with an accent from a some other country) you are a lot less likely to be employed. I also read of a study done by an anthropologist (since that is my major for my degree) and she spent a year working for different fast food resturants such as McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut etc. She concluded that it is almost impossible for a single person to live off the wage, and would be impossible for someone with a family. Apart from the fact that it is massive exploitation, very hard work and does not help you move up the job ladder at all. My mum is on welfare, dad left her after 27 years of marriage, she is 55, just after that she had to have an operation for breast cancer which has limited her ablility to lift her right arm, so know she can't do the care giving job she was doing at the hospital. It doesn't matter what re-training she does, no one will hire her because she is to old, what is she surposed to do? She spent her life bringing up her kids and being a pastors wife, now she's left in learch. Life doesn't always work out the way you want it and believe me, after being turned down for 50 job applications (as happened to my husband) your self esteem just isn't what it used to be.

 

Once again, not to be a pill, but as long as I have my back, and can physically get my butt out of bed every morning, I will NEVER be on welfare. I have too much pride in myself and my family to ever to that to myself. I thank God for that every day.

 

Wildernesse, I'll have that quote up tonight for ya!

 

[Kiwi]

Originally posted by smurfy2day
 

Once again, not to be a pill, but as long as I have my back, and can physically get my butt out of bed every morning, I will NEVER be on welfare. I have too much pride in myself and my family to ever to that to myself. I thank God for that every day. 

  

Never say never my dear.

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Originally posted by Kiwi
wow, I don't know of any job in my country that you have to take a drug test for, not even to be an MP (member of parliment).

Wow, really??? LOL! Most jobs here require itnow.

Originally posted by Kiwi

I also read of a study done by an anthropologist (since that is my major for my degree) and she spent a year working for different fast food resturants such as McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut etc. She concluded that it is almost impossible for a single person to live off the wage, and would be impossible for someone with a family. Apart from the fact that it is massive exploitation, very hard work and does not help you move up the job ladder at all.

Oh yes of course!! People who have those kinds of jobs have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to live off those wages. No one can live off minimum wage pay. Even with minimum wage being $6.50 now.

Skye Leigh

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Originally posted by smurfy2day
 

Once again, not to be a pill, but as long as I have my back, and can physically get my butt out of bed every morning, I will NEVER be on welfare. I have too much pride in myself and my family to ever to that to myself. I thank God for that every day.

 

Wildernesse, I'll have that quote up tonight for ya!

That reminds me of something I saw! I went to Sam's Club to shop, and I saw a woman who was handicapped riding in one of those motorized wheele chairs that kinda leans back like a reclining bed like but not flat down, and she worked for Sam's Club!! She had on their uniform and she rolled over to me and asked if she could help me find something!! Now if *she can work, I know other people can find work *somewhere. It's illegal for places to discriminate against disabilities or age. But that's here though in the US.

Skye Leigh

 

[lisa03wilson]

Even with minimum wage being $6.50 now.

are you talking about America? because I make much less than 6.50. I'm pretty sure min. wage is 5.25. That's what I was hired at two years ago atleast. If it's higher than that, it isn't by much.