Welfare recipeints to get drug testing!

[LilAngelHeart]

Originally posted by smurfy2day
I don't mean to be a pill here, but that is MY tax dollars going to pay for their drug addictions. As a former government employee, I was required to take drug tests myself. As a recipient of govnernement money, they need to understand that this is done only as a precautionary measure. I for one, and all for the testing of welfare recipients. I am terribly sorry, but McDonald's is ALWAYS hiring. There is absolutely no excuse why people choose to sit on their behinds and collect a check when jobs are much too easy to get.

And while no one may have dreams of ending up on welfare, I would guess that in 8 out of 10 cases, they are cycles that are repeating over and over. Maybe this will be the encouragement for the next generation to get off of welfare, and out into the workforce.

Smurfy I agree 100%!!! I mean why make people *like being on welfare??? They are not supposed to like it and feel comfortable there, so what if they feel bad to have to get tested??? If they don't like it they can go out and get a job then!!!

Skye Leigh

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Coastie: I don't see why anyone woudl be humiliated by having a drug test. All you have to do is urinate in a cup every so often. I think that I'd be moe humiliated by not being able to support my family to the point that I hdd to go on welfare. But that's just a stupid man/pride thing.

LOL!!! yes exactly!!!!Not just a man thing I feel the same way!! LOL!!!


Skye Leigh

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Originally posted by wildernesse
Imagine you have a young child at home and no one to take care of her--she's too young to go to school and there isn't a state-sponsored child care facility. When are you going to be able to work to supplement your income?

As for drug testing, I'm against it in all situations. I personally think that the war on drugs is ridiculous and a complete failure. We are wasting our (taxpayers) money on trying to catch drugs and not investing in programs and communities that could reduce drug dependency and general poverty.

--tibac

Where's the baby's father???

Skye Leigh

 

[LilyLamb]

Tami, do I know you??? LOL

You described me exactly - my husband left us three days before Christmas - I had three children - no job (he didn't allow me to work) and I was one of those who went on welfare/foodstamps/WIC while putting myself through school (w/Pell Grant) - oh and the section 8 was a "Godsend" - it allowed us to move out of a various dangerous living situation and into a larger home.

Yeah, I could have worked at McDonalds while going through school, but then I would never have seen my children and they were already suffering enough as it is ... after I graduated I got a job at the school and slowly worked my way off welfare and food stamps and finally moved into a place that I could afford.

As far as the drug test goes - it wouldn't bother me to do it.

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Originally posted by coastie

Also your scenario of the single mother taking care of her kid. Drug testing will make sure that she is taking adequate care of her child. It will make sure that she is not using her money to buy drugs to feed her habit instead of using it to raise her daughter and put food in her little tummy.

Drug testing benefits everyone... I don't understand how you could see it any other way.

Right, exactly!!


Skye Leigh

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Originally posted by LilyLamb
Tami, do I know you??? LOL

You described me exactly - my husband left us three days before Christmas - I had three children - no job (he didn't allow me to work) and I was one of those who went on welfare/foodstamps/WIC while putting myself through school (w/Pell Grant) - oh and the section 8 was a "Godsend" - it allowed us to move out of a various dangerous living situation and into a larger home.

Yeah, I could have worked at McDonalds while going through school, but then I would never have seen my children and they were already suffering enough as it is ... after I graduated I got a job at the school and slowly worked my way off welfare and food stamps and finally moved into a place that I could afford.

As far as the drug test goes - it wouldn't bother me to do it.

The way that you used welfare is exactly the way it *should be used! But unfortunately there are lots of young girls who drop out of high school, have a couple of babies and go on welfare as if that's an acceptable way to live. Then the kids they raised do the same thing.


Skye Leigh

 

[smurfy2day]

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

Skye Leigh

 

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!! My thougths EXACTLY.

 

And personally? I would fall back on my family before even considering going on welfare.

 

A LOT of state funded programs have daycare......

 

[coastie]

Originally posted by LilyLamb


As far as the drug test goes - it wouldn't bother me to do it.

I just want to start out by saying RIGHT ON!!! I love stories like these!

I'm also curious as to why you have no problem with mandatory drug testing. I agree, but I wonder if we feel this way for the same reason.

Zach

 

[wildernesse]

coastie:

Even with police officers, air traffic controllers, surgeons, Judges, college students, pilots, and bus drivers?

If they are able to do their jobs while on drugs, why not? Think about this--what would happen if those people showed up to work drunk? More than once? They would probably be fired and would not get anywhere near the bus, plane, office, etc. You're not forced to have random blood alcohol tests at work and alcohol is legal and very dangerous when abused. Why couldn't the same standards for alcohol be used for other intoxicants?

We would be the absolute most strung out unproductive culture in the world if it weren't for drug testing.

Is the only thing keeping you from drug use workplace testing? I'm not in a situation that requires me to be tested for drugs and yet I still don't use drugs.

So we should just go ahead and legalize all drugs or are there particular one's that you would suggest we keep illegal?

Yes, I think that all drugs should be legalized--and that we should use the money we spend keeping drugs out (at which we do an expensive and poor job) and the money used to proscecute those with drug problems toward community building and programs that prevent the need for addiction or abuse.

Prevention is not stopping the drugs before they reach the user or punishing the abuser--prevention is stopping the need for drugs before there is a desire or an addiction.

Also your scenario of the single mother taking care of her kid. Drug testing will make sure that she is taking adequate care of her child.

Drug testing will not make sure that she knows how to manage her anger or what to do when her child is sick. Drug testing will not tell her about immunizations or teach her good parenting skills. A person can be completely drug free and still be a horrible parent.

It will make sure that she is not using her money to buy drugs to feed her habit instead of using it to raise her daughter and put food in her little tummy.

No, it will make sure that she's not using her welfare check to support an addiction. Once her state money is gone and the addiction is still there, she will turn to other ways of getting money. Like McDonald's, prostitution is always available and can be done in your own home. Of course, that can feed the self-loathing that many people turn to their addictions to escape.

I'm not saying that the single mother in my example has an addiction, or that if she lost her check, she would turn to street-walking. But desparate people make desparate decisions. Our emphasis should be on healing and strengthening our communities so that drugs can't gain a toe-hold.

Drug testing benefits everyone... I don't understand how you could see it any other way.

I'm sorry that you don't understand me--I hope that in this post I have made myself more clear. I think that the war on drugs has been a spectacular failure and we have wasted money on something that could have been better spent elsewhere. Drug testing is part of that. I can understand that you have a different opinion than I do--I just don't agree with it.

--tibac

 

[wildernesse]

Where's the baby's father?

Maybe he's dead, maybe he's in prison, maybe he's just gone. Maybe the woman did something that Christians apparently never do (as evidenced by their lack of empathy)--she made a bad decision and is living out the consequences of it.

I don't feel that, as a Christian, my job is to say "Nah-nah-nah! If you'd only been a good Christian, you wouldn't be in that situation! You should have listened to me! Sinner!". It should be, "What are your needs and how can I minister to you? Because, but for the grace of God, there I am."

Many states do not offer child-care facilities for parents on welfare. Many rural areas not only don't have child-care facilities, they don't have lots of jobs to begin with (McDonalds? Not in the county I grew up in.) And without transportation, how do you get to a job 15 miles away? Many times problems are more complex than we think they are.

Still, there's the question of what you would do with an infant and no support--when would you work to supplement your welfare? Where would you leave your child?

My argument is not that people who find themselves in this position should not work--it's that people who find themselves in this position have a lot of needs that need to be met, so that they can pull themselves out of the hole they're in (however they got there). The government extends a hand with welfare and WIC and food stamps and Pell, etc. Oftentimes, there are gaps that are left (especially in rural counties) and that's where I feel people of faith should be stepping up and taking up the slack. Not because the government is applauding us to make a difference, but because that is evidence of a living faith. (IMO)


--tibac

 

[coastie]

If they are able to do their jobs while on drugs, why not? Think about this--what would happen if those people showed up to work drunk? More than once? They would probably be fired and would not get anywhere near the bus, plane, office, etc. You're not forced to have random blood alcohol tests at work and alcohol is legal and very dangerous when abused. Why couldn't the same standards for alcohol be used for other intoxicants?

It isn't as easy to recognize if they are on drugs. Believe me, a person on Methamphetmines is MUCH more dangerous than a drunk person. I'm an EMT, I've seen it all. I've hit in the face by drunk guys who I was trying to help and I've been thrown ten feet by folks on meth who I was tying to help.

Alcohol is out of your system much faster than drugs are. Alcohol tests should absolutely be administered more often. The point is that I am not going to trust lives in the hands of someone who has the unpredictability of a meth user.

Is the only thing keeping you from drug use workplace testing? I'm not in a situation that requires me to be tested for drugs and yet I still don't use drugs.

No, but it's rather naive to think that all people are as responsible as you are.

Yes, I think that all drugs should be legalized--and that we should use the money we spend keeping drugs out (at which we do an expensive and poor job) and the money used to proscecute those with drug problems toward community building and programs that prevent the need for addiction or abuse.

So instead of preventing drug use, we'll just deal with the aftermath. I understand what your saying, but I strongly disagree with your aproach to the drug problem. Are you aware that there are drugs out there that are so addictive that you are addicted the first time you try it?

Are you aware that there are drugs out there that are so dangerous that some people die the first time they try them. So you think that we should just legalize them and allow these people to make these mistakes?

I couldn't do that.

prevention is stopping the need for drugs before there is a desire or an addiction.

How do you do that?

Drug testing will not make sure that she knows how to manage her anger or what to do when her child is sick. Drug testing will not tell her about immunizations or teach her good parenting skills. A person can be completely drug free and still be a horrible parent.

I absolutely agree, but drugs are a very real element in many cases and should not be discounted as no big deal.

No, it will make sure that she's not using her welfare check to support an addiction. Once her state money is gone and the addiction is still there, she will turn to other ways of getting money. Like McDonald's, prostitution is always available and can be done in your own home. Of course, that can feed the self-loathing that many people turn to their addictions to escape.

LOL... ok, I started to rebutt this but I'm starting to get frustrated so it's time for me to get out.

You are giving me a head-ache.

God Bless

 

[wildernesse]

coastie,

I really appreciate your reply--and yes, my response is both naive and idealistic. If I were a jaded, cynical 22-year-old, I would have no reason to work for a better life for myself and my community.

I think that we should focus our money on preventing drug addictions in the young, building safe and strong communities, educating and empowering the youth and helping those who are addicted to free themselves.

I wasn't born responsible, I was taught by my parents and community to be this way. I think that we should create programs and support communities and efforts to create responsible people.

So instead of preventing drug use, we'll just deal with the aftermath.

I think that's what is already happening.

Are you aware that there are drugs out there that are so addictive that you are addicted the first time you try it?

Yes, and I think that we should deal with the reasons that people try these drugs in the first place, so that when they are confronted with this situation, they choose not to use the drug.

How do you do that? Well, think about this. Why do people use drugs? Why don't you use drugs?

Many people use drugs as a means of escape--give them the tools they will need to cope with anything that life throws at them, before they get into a tough situation. If they make a mistake, get them help.

Some kids use drugs because they are insecure--give them the tools to find their own worth and let them know how valuable they are.


I'm sorry your head hurts, go take some yummy drugs!

--tibac

 

[coastie]

I'm sorry your head hurts, go take some yummy drugs!

LOL... that's it! I'm never arguing with you again

ok ok... you know I'll be back when my head can handle this crud.

until then God bless wildernesse, you are now officially my favorite liberal.

Zach

 

[Angel75]

hey coastie...this is a little off topic but i had to ask..How in the world is a military family making so little they need welfare? My hubby is thinking about going back in after 2 yrs of being out. And we will be on just his salary and be fine. Not only do you get your monthly salary, you are given housing and there are a few other perks. We live now in a beautiful pool home, have 2 cars raise my son and are saving for another baby, and we do it on about the same he will make when he goes back in if he does. So sorry but I have got to say, whoever needs welfare while in military has got to be mis managing money somehow....

 

[coastie]

While I am sure that that is the case in some situations, the biggest problem is in San Diego where there is no base housing for Navy or Coast Guard and E-2's to E-4's are having to live off the economy on a BAH that has been due for a decent rasie for at least three years.

There was one guy on my boat when I was stationed there that was married with a kid. He had a BA in Economics from Boston College but decided he'd rather do some traveling first. Because his kid was such a young baby, his wife couldn't work so they were living, in San Diego on about 1500 a month while for a smallish apartment cost around 850$ a month.

With a car payment, he was broke beyond help. He stopped paying his college loans and eventually had to get a little (well actually a lot) of extra help from the military.

Basically, if you ask me, it was stupid of him to ENLIST after four years of college. He could have been an officer making some serious bucks.

Here's to romantic but stupid decisions!

By the way, he's a pretty good friend of my wife and I, that's why I can talk trash about him

 

[Angel75]

see your point but but in addition to the 1500 he should get a housing allowance too right? I know in atlanta for an e5 the housing bonus/alowance /whatever they call it is close to 1000, so it has to be decent in San fran! Then the 1500 should take care of utilities, food, and car...but yes sounds tight...

 

[coastie]

he was an e-3 so his BAH was around 600 a month

 

[MSBS]

Coastie,
That kind of thing isn't new, it's been going on for years. The military hasn't even paid junior enlisted people enough money to support a family in large urban areas. I knew people in similar situations to your friend back in the late 80s/early 90s when I was in the CG. I was always under the impression that it was a way for them to keep people that young from getting married since they could not dictate to them whether or not they could any more (it used to be up to the command whether they could but that changed at some point). If you remember, the Marine Corps tried to do that about 93 or so and the Clinton admin. shot it down.

Heck, I remember my dad being an E-4 with 3 kids back in the 70s (Air Force). Luckily we never had to live in a large city and always got base housing, but we sure lived meagerly. I couldn't imagine what it would have been like had we gotten stationed in DC or San Francisco or something.

As for drug testing, I don't see the big deal. I've been subjected to drug testing for pretty much most of my adult life. First in the Coast Guard and then in the private sector (I worked as a truck driver while putting myself through school). But these are, of course, jobs where safety issues can come in to play.

If they are able to do their jobs while on drugs, why not? Think about this--what would happen if those people showed up to work drunk? More than once? They would probably be fired and would not get anywhere near the bus, plane, office, etc. You're not forced to have random blood alcohol tests at work and alcohol is legal and very dangerous when abused. Why couldn't the same standards for alcohol be used for other intoxicants?

Depends on where you work. Truck drivers and others can be subject to random alcohol tests. The biggest thing here, though, is that there are a few differences between drugs and alcohol.

1. Alcohol does not remain in your system long enough for testing to indicate it's presence other than when you are under the influence.

2. Alcohol tends to be rather more obvious when being used and in safety sensitive jobs and in those situations a "reasonable suspicion" test can be administered by the employer (for alcohol or drugs) at any time. Smell alcohol on the drivers breath? Test him. In California the rules are much stricter than in cars-- .02 to .04 BAL and you can't drive anymore but will not be charged with a crime. Above .04 it's a DUI, and if you are driving HAZMAT (transporting hazardous material) it's a felony and your class A license is revoked for life.

3. Alcohol is currently a legal substance (unlike, say, tobacco here in Ca now ). Any testing that showed long term use would be meaningless.

Also, I'd like to point out that since this thread is about drug testing and welfare and, as I said above, alcohol is legal testing for it would be entirely meaningless for people on welfare. I suspect showing up for a meeting with your case worker drunk would have some repercussions though.

As for your first statement, Wilderness, about people being able to do their jobs on drugs, so why not let them, well, do you really think that people under the inflence of drugs or alcohol should be able to make those decisions? Obviously, every situation where people are hurt or killed by someone in one of those jobs who was using, the person using felt that they were able to do their job just fine while under the influence. That's why the state has made those types of laws, since it is silly to expect good judgement from someone whose judgement is impared.

 

[wildernesse]

. Alcohol does not remain in your system long enough for testing to indicate it's presence other than when you are under the influence.

Are people still under the influence of drugs if it's detectable? Think about pot, it can be detected up to 6 months after use--are you still under the influence? Probably not.

People under the influence are more than likely obviously intoxicated--and those who aren't obvious probably means they're performing as well as the worst normal people on staff--which should say something about the quality of the work force.

As for your first statement, Wilderness, about people being able to do their jobs on drugs, so why not let them, well, do you really think that people under the inflence of drugs or alcohol should be able to make those decisions?

No, I don't believe that people are able or should be allowed to do their jobs intoxicated. If someone shows up intoxicated (by our legal friend, alcohol) to their job, then there are consequences. Hopefully they would be fired soon afterwards if they were not able to control themselves--and I think that anyone who showed up under the influence of any drug should be treated the same way.

Obviously, every situation where people are hurt or killed by someone in one of those jobs who was using, the person using felt that they were able to do their job just fine while under the influence.

Usually supervisors were looking the other way and not taking safety precautions as well, when there are accidents.

I don't mean to advocate for drug laws to be repealed tomorrow, and the world keep on spinning the way it is, so that druggies can show up to work impaired. I think that there should be preventative measures taken so that people don't need drugs in the first place. I'm thinking long-term, not tomorrow.

--tibac

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by wildernesse
Are people still under the influence of drugs if it's detectable? Think about pot, it can be detected up to 6 months after use--are you still under the influence? Probably not.

I guess I should have been clearer here.  That was my point, testing in this context is about whether people have been using, not if they are high right now.  Testing with alcohol is limited by technology and is legal.  You where making an comparison between drugs and alcohol, I was pointing out differences that show that comparison not to support your argument. 

People under the influence are more than likely obviously intoxicated--and those who aren't obvious probably means they're performing as well as the worst normal people on staff--which should say something about the quality of the work force.

I'm really wondering where it is you work .

Usually supervisors were looking the other way and not taking safety precautions as well, when there are accidents.

Not in my experience.  I would think it rare for supervisors to look the other way.  When I had truck drivers working under me, I never, ever, looked the other way.  My thinking on this was always 1. nothing about this job can justify anyone getting hurt or killed and 2. it's going to be me sitting in the defendent's box should any lawsuits come down the pipe from my looking the other way.  Some jerk that comes to work either drunk or high is not worth my taking those risks or exposing others to them, even if it does cause a short term shortfall on the job.  I think most supervisors look at things that way.