This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Florida to require drug testing for welfare recipients
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ExDementia
Ok :) I think we've argued our points as much as is needed. It's pretty safe to say we'll never agree but hey, it was fun!
Post by
Heckler
Ok :) I think we've argued our points as much as is needed. It's pretty safe to say we'll never agree but hey, it was fun!
Fair enough, sorry if I got repetitive. For the record, I do see your points, and I do think that the welfare system needs reforms. I just don't think this is the right way to do it, nor even a step in the right direction. Also, sorry again to xara =)
Post by
ExDementia
:)
Post by
gnomerdon
For anything to work, both sides must bleed in sacrifice. The purest example would be the grate compromise
Post by
Squishalot
Another point on which we agree. A quick google search of my own broke down the average expenses of welfare recipients. Most of their income is spent on Food and Shelter (54% according to the site). The rest is for "clothing, laundry, household supplies, transportation, furniture, appliances, and the occasional treat." So let's say the drugs fall under the "occasional treat" category for those that use drugs. It still seems like a huge assumption to me that this blanket policy of drug testing will end up being cost effective. (Say drugs are 10% of total expenses and X% use drugs -- how large does X have to be to make the program cost effective? And this isn't even considering the personal privacy / freedom concerns.)
Heckler, I understand your position, but I'd like to make a note about this that you're ignoring.
I would argue that those who use drugs are likely to spend a greater proportion of their income on drugs and a lower proportion on essentials, compared to those who do not use drugs. So even if 54% is the average, it's likely to be (say) 60% for non-drug users, and (say) 35% for drug users.
The benefit of it, at the end of the day, requires you to measure how much money makes it into the hands of essentials to the families. Essentially, that is, for each drug using family, it's bringing that 35% up to the 60% level that everyone else is at, irrespective of a person's drug choices. Then, of course, there's the additional value that comes from people voluntarily changing their drug using habits and reducing illicit drug demand.
Is it cost effective? There are a lot of variables to measure. Arguably though, if it means that you're ensuring your welfare funding gets to the families that need it for essentials, and not being pumped into drug trafficking, then it'd need to be horribly expensive for it to *not* be cost effective, given the compounding effect of benefits that will flow from the measure.
Post by
pezz
1) Heckler's points about being searched every time you leave the house really aren't that extreme. Remember the difference between airline travel before and after 9/11? Oh, but that's right, if I haven't done anything wrong I have nothing to fear. We waste millions on the TSA, they do invasive searches, it takes twice as long to catch my flight now, people who enjoy knitting can't take a pair of scissors with a two inch blade on a plane, and I have to buy my drinking water in the terminal, but at least I have nothing to fear.
2) I'd be interested in the specifics of the study Heckler studied. One because of Squish's point, and two because I want to be sure it wasn't based on volunteered information.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
im sorry but i just saw this and had to make an acount just to say how $%^&ing stupid this idiot is. my mom has a drug problem but that dosnt mean she is less equal to anyone else! adiction is a desease and it dosnt mean she shudnt be able to provide for her family wen the econemy is complete %^&* like it is. thats descrimination and its wrong. some people were born with adictive personalitys and its NOT THEYRE FAULT.
I think the point you're missing is that your mother ISN'T providing for your family. I am. So is everyone else who pays taxes. See all that food on your table, the clothes on your back, the roof over your head? If your mother is receiving welfare to pay for it, then she isn't doing anything to provide for your family- the rest of us are. And if she is receiving assistance, and spending any of it on drugs rather than on you, she is stealing from you more than she is stealing for the rest of us, because that money is for your food, shelter and education.
And, the idea that she is not responsible because she has an "addictive personality" is a joke. That's like saying that if a man you take a parking spot from follows you into the store and beats you to a bloody pulp, it's ok because it's not his fault that he has a worse temper than the average person. Having a predisposition for something does not mean you have no responsibility. I would guess that she's been using that as an excuse as long as you can remember, and you've grown up believing it. It's not true- if she is a drug addict, she has the ability to quit. It's really hard, and she has to really want to, but she absolutely can do it. It IS her fault.
I am not trying to slam you, or make fun of you, because I believe you're young, and probably in a really bad situation. But the reality is that if people are going to be paying her bills, and for her food and clothing, then they have a right to make sure she's not wasting that money on drugs.
@ People who are talking about invasion of privacy, supposition of guilt, etc.
Assistance programs are free money. They're not something people earn. They are a safety net that the government sets up out of compassion for people who cannot, for whatever reason, make ends meet. But they have every right to set limitations on it's use. And they set limitations all the time.
To get any assistance, they make you prove you're in need, and set limits on who can get it based on their economic situation. If you are receiving housing assistance, they regulate who can live in the appartment with you- if people who are not covered (boyfriend, girlfriend) move in, then can withdraw the assistance. If you get WIC, they only cover certain foods. I believe you are restricted about what kinds of foods/drinks you can use food stamps for as well. And if they see evidence that you are receiving welfare, and don't need it (you have money to spend on cars, designer labels, etc.), I'm pretty sure they can bring you up on charges for fraud. The government already does what it can to make sure that assistance programs are only going to people who need them, and that the money is used the way it's intended. Can they catch every abuse- no. Should they be trying to- yes. Is it abuse to take free money that is given to you so you don't starve or freeze in the street, and spend it on weed, Gucci or Playstation- absolutely.
If someone cannot get a job because they haven't had the educational opportunities, because the economy is slow, or because they're disabled, then I can see helping them out. If they can't get a job because they can't pass a drug test, or because they feel entitled to not have to work and game the system, then the **** with them. You don't have a RIGHT to have someone else pay for your life- it's charity. And if the people providing that charity want their money to go towards food, housing and education, rather than drugs, then they have every right to demand that, because it is their money.
Yes, I believe weed should be legal. No, I will not buy you yours.
Post by
ExDementia
1) Heckler's points about being searched every time you leave the house really aren't that extreme. Remember the difference between airline travel before and after 9/11? Oh, but that's right, if I haven't done anything wrong I have nothing to fear. We waste millions on the TSA, they do invasive searches, it takes twice as long to catch my flight now, people who enjoy knitting can't take a pair of scissors with a two inch blade on a plane, and I have to buy my drinking water in the terminal, but at least I have nothing to fear.
That is still an extreme comparison. $30 per person is much, much less than what the TSA costs. Lets say one drug addict is refused welfare after this law:
A quick google search says that the average family of three will receive about ~700$ a month. With a dash of 3rd grade math and a spritzing of finger counting, I determined that it adds up to around $8,400 a year, and at lets say $30 a test, that rounds out to enough money to pay for 280 tests.
So the money we save by not fueling that one persons drug habits is enough to cover the next 280 guys that follow him wanting a test. Even if only one out of every 279 people requesting welfare fail or refuse to take the test, we are
saving
money. Now I personally believe that number will be much higher than one out of every 279, therefore, this really isn't all that expensive, in fact it saves money overall - which was the point of the bill.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think another point people who are against the law might be missing, is that this might actually help drug addicts. Therapists who deal with friends and families of drug addicts constantly warn against enabling them. If a drug addict is not held accountable for their actions, and are given money and support regardless of whether or not they use, then they have no incentive to ever quit. Most people who do quit either hit rock bottom and have to when they have no one left to support them, or they have someone intervene with tough love and require them to go to rehab or quit in order to have a place to stay or any other support. Very few people quit drugs while they're comfortable and well supplied. If the system makes it impossible to get government aid to feed your addiction, they're making it harder for you to stay comfortable. For many people, the threat of being homeless and without food might be what gets them to quit.
Post by
mindthegap5
I thought the dole was just drug money to keep the stupid people quiet.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I honestly think they should take the list of people who are on public assistance because they can't find a job, and keep it as an "on call" list. If a public works project comes up, or some un-skilled position in government building needs to be filled, I think they should require people who are being paid to do nothing to come in and work for the money they're recieving. If they need day-care, it can be provided from the same on-call list. If they need transportation, that can also be provided from the "on-call" list. It wouldn't really cost all that much more to provide these services, since it will, again, be people who are already being paid this money.
If someone is getting unemployment or welfare, and they refuse to come work without a good reason (in hospital, attending school at that time, etc.), I think they should stop recieveing benefits. For people who are willing to work, and really just can't find a job, this should be no problem. For people who don't really want to work, and are just trying to skate by, this will make it less attractive to try and live off the government.
This is separate from disability, of course.
Post by
Heckler
. . . because you're completely ignoring 90% of the post and zoning in a single sentence without the context from the previous sentence.
The reason I was pulling quotes like that (aside from the fact that anyone can simply scroll up and read the context without the need for a huge quote block, which wouldn't change my statement at all) is because so far only a few people have diverged with my general statement that "the main reason to support this bill is because of your stereotypical attitude about welfare recipients that probably has nothing more than anecdotal evidence."
In the vast majority of posts supporting this bill, the above statement holds true. And as far as I can tell, that's the same basis the law was written on. I haven't seen any links to research in any of the articles I've read on the bill. In all likelihood, the members of this thread is a decent microcosm for the members of the Florida legislature, with anecdotal backing being the main force pushing the bill forward.
Is it cost effective?
There are a lot of variables to measure
. Arguably though, if it means that you're ensuring your welfare funding gets to the families that need it for essentials, and not being pumped into drug trafficking, then it'd need to be horribly expensive for it to *not* be cost effective, given the compounding effect of benefits that will flow from the measure.
This is essentially my point. However, there's a lot of unknowns from the second half of your statement as well. How many of these drug-using welfare recipients got into that "world" because when no one would hire them, and the welfare money wasn't enough, they went looking for work elsewhere (prostitution, dealing, etc -- a world that is flourishing and readily available in large cities)? In what ways will cutting these people off make the whole problem worse? There are definitely a lot of variables to measure, and a lot of secondary impacts that no one is even considering.
That's been my point from the beginning, most (not all) of the supporters in this thread haven't given an ounce of thought to the question of secondary effects, pro or con. Their anecdotal first reaction is good enough. They consider welfare a form of taxpayer funded charity, not a vital social safety net that benefits the society far more than its absence would. You can't call something like that charity, it's a worthwhile investment on which you expect returns. Taxpayer dollars that go towards Medicare and Social Security aren't generally considered charity, after all.
Welfare money being used on drugs is a symptom of at least one larger problem, and you don't cure diseases by treating symptoms. In a lot of cases, you can make the underlying disease worse by doing so, as I think (there's at least a case to be made) this bill does. I can find reasons to oppose this bill on economic, morality, and efficiency grounds. I can only find reasons to support it on anecdotal ones.
Post by
Meggie
Lawmakers make law for a living. What's behind this law? The thousands of dead mexicans due to the drug war? Or do elderly Christian people resort to the eternal gratitude of clean bums after their own children abandoned them?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Lawmakers make law for a living. What's behind this law? The thousands of dead mexicans due to the drug war? Or do elderly Christian people resort to the eternal gratitude of clean bums after their own children abandoned them?
What is...I don't...huh?
@Heckler
I was actually trying to point out that the system ALREADY has a number of controls on it, and requirements people have to meet to be eligible for different assistance programs. People have to meet certain economic requirements. If someone is getting unemployment, in many cases they have to provide evidence that they are actively seeking employment. If someone is receiving disability, they have to show that they are really unable to work. If someone is receiving housing assistance, they have to make sure that no one moves in who is making money and not contributing. These restrictions are based in making the programs as cost effective as possible (economic), making sure people are no defrauding the system (legal) and making sure that when the general population is asked to hand over a portion of the money that they earn to help people get back on their feet, that the money isn't taken to be used for frivilous things (moral). It's no more of an invasion of privacy to require that people who take public assistance to provide evidence that they don't do drugs, than it is for an employer to require the same test. It's not because the employer thinks that, statistically, it's employees are drug addicts. It's because they want to make sure that their business runs a certain way. The government wants to make sure their assistance programs run a certain way. If someone doesn't want to stop doing drugs, they don't have to sign up for assistance.
I agree that the fact that welfare money is being used for drugs is a symptom of a larger problem- the problem being that public assistance programs are too easy to take advantage of and too easy to rely on instead of taking personal responsibility to provide for yourself and your family. We have a lot of rights in the US- speech, expression, religion, pursuit of happiness, equal treatment under the law, etc. We DON'T have the right to expect to not be productive members of society, and then expect the rest of society to foot the bill for whatever lifestyle we want to enjoy. It's a privilidge.
Post by
Heckler
If someone is getting unemployment or welfare, and they refuse to come work without a good reason (in hospital, attending school at that time, etc.), I think they should stop recieveing benefits. For people who are willing to work, and really just can't find a job, this should be no problem. For people who don't really want to work, and are just trying to skate by, this will make it less attractive to try and live off the government.
It's not fair to group Welfare with Unemployment, because unemployment is an insurance program that you only get if you pay into it at a previous job. It's also not fair to point at someone living on unemployment and fault them for not taking a job at Burger King when they have a Master's degree, and taking the Burger King job might prevent them from getting a job they're more qualified for at a later date (which is why the amount of time you can draw unemployment is limited). Unemployment insurance is completely different than welfare, and really shouldn't even discussed in the same context.
I actually agree with what you said about public works projects, but I don't imagine they have many of those in Florida under Rick Scott (ref.
refusal of high speed rail grants
). But from a larger perspective, spending money and effort on systemic reforms that would indirectly reduce welfare money going towards drugs would be far more likely to have my support than the idea to blanket drug test
everyone
as a prerequisite to get their assistance. It goes back to what I said about personal responsibility... you can't say this bill promotes personal responsibility at all, because it punishes (albeit lightly) the most responsible people in the subset.
Post by
ExDementia
1) Heckler's points about being searched every time you leave the house really aren't that extreme. Remember the difference between airline travel before and after 9/11? Oh, but that's right, if I haven't done anything wrong I have nothing to fear. We waste millions on the TSA, they do invasive searches, it takes twice as long to catch my flight now, people who enjoy knitting can't take a pair of scissors with a two inch blade on a plane, and I have to buy my drinking water in the terminal, but at least I have nothing to fear.
That is still an extreme comparison. $30 per person is much, much less than what the TSA costs. Lets say one drug addict is refused welfare after this law:
A quick google search says that the average family of three will receive about ~700$ a month. With a dash of 3rd grade math and a spritzing of finger counting, I determined that it adds up to around $8,400 a year, and at lets say $30 a test, that rounds out to enough money to pay for 280 tests.
So the money we save by not fueling that one persons drug habits is enough to cover the next 280 guys that follow him wanting a test. Even if only one out of every 279 people requesting welfare fail or refuse to take the test, we are
saving
money. Now I personally believe that number will be much higher than one out of every 279, therefore, this really isn't all that expensive, in fact it saves money overall - which was the point of the bill.
I think it
is
cost effective.
Post by
Heckler
A quick google search says that the average family of three will receive about ~700$ a month. With a dash of 3rd grade math and a spritzing of finger counting, I determined that it adds up to around $8,400 a year, and at lets say $30 a test, that rounds out to enough money to pay for 280 tests.
Keep in mind that in a "family of three" even if the parent tests positive, or refuses the test, they can designate someone else to get the money for their kids. So even in this case, where you "caught" a drug user, you don't save the full $8400, and its very possible that money will still end up in the drug users' hands.
Post by
ExDementia
A quick google search says that the average family of three will receive about ~700$ a month. With a dash of 3rd grade math and a spritzing of finger counting, I determined that it adds up to around $8,400 a year, and at lets say $30 a test, that rounds out to enough money to pay for 280 tests.
Keep in mind that in a "family of three" even if the parent tests positive, or refuses the test, they can designate someone else to get the money for their kids. So even in this case, where you "caught" a drug user, you don't save the full $8400, and its very possible that money will still end up in the drug users' hands.
Once again you cut out the rest of the post. The part that would refute what you just said:
So the money we save by not fueling that one persons drug habits is enough to cover the next 280 guys that follow him wanting a test. Even if only one out of every 279 people requesting welfare fail or refuse to take the test, we are saving money. Now I personally believe that number will be much higher than one out of every 279, therefore, this really isn't all that expensive, in fact it saves money overall - which was the point of the bill.
Are you saying that this wouldn't prevent or discourage even one out of every 280 applicants not only from getting the money directly from the government, but through some weasel loop-hole like you described?
Post by
Heckler
Are you saying that this wouldn't prevent or discourage even one out of every 280 applicants not only from getting the money directly from the government, but through some weasel loop-hole like you described?
What I'm describing is not a weasel-like loophole. If a single parent has 2 kids, and that person pops positive on a drug test, do you think the kids should be punished? I'm going to assume no. That means that that person can tell his mother (who will then also have to be tested) or someone else to go get the kids' welfare money for them. That's not a loophole, its a necessary method of getting the assistance where it is needed (whihc could then be exploited). Your data came from a "family of three" -- my point was that in a family of three, even if the drug tests finds the drug user, the government still cuts a large check.
This means that it's not 1 in 280. It's 1 in (the new number which accounts for the fact that the total savings are significantly less than $8400 per 'family of three').
Edit:
If we just divide it by three (which is probably not the right way to do it, since the food/shelter part of it would still need to be given at the same rate, but for simplicity), we get 2800. That's enough for 80 drug tests. Now, in order to properly account for children, we have to include them in the subset. So,
including children and dependents
, are more than 1 in 80 welfare recipients using a significant portion of their money on drugs? I think that's a better estimate. If all we had were families of three with single parents, only 26 of the 80 above are adults, so are more than 1 in 26 adults on welfare using a significant portion of the assistance on drugs? Now I think we're getting into the territory where I think the odds are getting closer, and when you actually factor in what percentage of the welfare money goes towards drugs (vice into the local economy, legally), the numbers get even smaller. This is the type of data that runs through my head when you say that a huge huge portion of welfare recipients are drug abusers.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.