Drug tests for Public Assistance recipients

[tinytim]

On a side note.. if you knew a family was abusing the system.. and using their foodstamps to purchase meth.. who here would report them?

Or would you, by your silence, condone it?

I for one reported it.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I'd report it.

The kids are going to suffer no matter what. I'd prefer that they were removed from such an environment. I've also dealt with enough families that had drug problems to know that in about 50-60% of the cases there is a relative who is NOT a druggie who can take care of the kids until the druggie gets rehab and stays clean for a while. But that's my limited experience in the areas I have lived in. Places like NYC, Chicago and Atlanta, etc. probably would have lower percentages.

 

[targus]

I agree that we should do income verification. Reaching into their private lives is no more supportable than doing that for everyone.

And it their income is low because they sit around getting high and watching the tube instead of working that's ok with you?

I personally would rather not pay "contributions" or "investments" or whatever else they are calling taxes these days to support such behavior.

 

[BigBossman]

I have no problem with people getting drug tested who receive government benefits at the tax payer's expense. That's they way it should be. Of course, a typical drug test will cost around $20.00 to $30.00. I think the person being tested, should be required to pay for the drug test. I don't think the tax payers should have to pay for that test.

 

[Spinach]

What about WIC? Food Stamps?

Or are you specifically talking about recipients of cash?

 

[EdSutton]

I
I can think of some on both sides...
For instance...

A pro... If mom or dad test positive for illegal drugs, assistance would be stopped... This would make sure that the people that are getting assistance from those of us that are working to give it to them are not using the money for drugs...

On the other hand...

...

On the other hand... (yeah.. 3 hands)...

...

And on the last hand (LOL)...

...

OOOOps.. another hand...

...

So...

I would appreciate some comments before I decide what to do...

...

But on the other hand..

...
So... (I can't believe I am asking this... raying: ... Let me have it!!! ) :tonofbricks:

I counted six hands, here.

I'll bet you could have a costume that would really scare little kids at Halloween, with six hands showing. Ya' know, kind of like "Dr. Octopus" in "Spiderman".

Have you considered that, for one possibility??

Ed

 

[Spinach]

While I support it on one hand, I am concerned----I imagine myself going in to sign up for food stamps and being told that I have to take a drug test. I'd feel criminal. It has a stigma. Also, being told that I would have to pay to prove I wasn't a criminal would be humiliating.

 

[rbell]

When I lived in West Alabama, there was an enormous underground market with food stamps (this was pre-EBT card; not sure how it works now).

Several instances:

• I was in line behind a customer who was paying with food stamps. They had a 50 lb. bag of dog food on the conveyer. When the clerk told them that pet food couldn't be paid for with food stamps, the woman sent her child back, and had him return with a package of round steaks. She commented that her dog would eat well this week. Mad, I was.
• "Food stamps for cash" trades took place regularly at area grocery stores in west Alabama. I honestly don't remember the "rate," but it seemed like 60-70 cents on the dollar. (I hope the EBT card helped knock that out).
• Adjusting food stamp payments was notoriously slow where we were. Often times, a family who lost a dependent (they moved out, joined the army, got married, etc.,) would continue to receive food stamps for that sized household for months, maybe years, later. Often times, the family would sell the excess stamps to other folks. Our next-door neighbors did this for a couple of years after their two oldest moved out. We called to report the fraud, and I'll never forget the words we were told, and I quote:

We don't have enough staff to bother with small stuff. Call us back in 2-3 months, and we might be able to do something about it.

Spinach...to address your post, I'm conflicted. I feel there should be an amount of trepidation in applying for public relief. Humiliation takes it too far...but I've known too many people that were not bothered at all that they were on public assistance. It should bother us...and that should be our motivation to better ourselves in whatever way we can, so that we can one day take ourselves off the public dole.

For the kids, I feel for them. But like I said...I don't know where the line is, but it should be between the two extremes of humiliating recipients, and there being nothing thought of living off of other people's labor.

 

[carpro]

A few months ago, I received an email.. one of those forwarded emails that we all HATE.. .but still forward to people we supposedly like... :tongue3:

Any way the gist of the email was that if people who have jobs are required to submit to random drug testing, shouldn't people who we support through Public Assistance.. (food stamps, check, etc) also be tested for drugs...

I thought it was a good idea... and contacted all my representatives... and NOT a one to this day has returned my email or call... (Can anyone say time for new representation!)

Good idea!

Drugs are expensive. Being on drugs strongly suggests one is spending their money on things other than what they should. Like food and clothing and rent, etc.

 

[Salty]

Tim
Be sure to bring this up on PS!:thumbs: :1_grouphug:

 

[Bob Alkire]

While I support it on one hand, I am concerned----I imagine myself going in to sign up for food stamps and being told that I have to take a drug test. I'd feel criminal. It has a stigma. Also, being told that I would have to pay to prove I wasn't a criminal would be humiliating.

Why? I take a drug test up to four times a year to keep my job and I don't feel like a criminal. I never know when they are coming, I report to work and am given a paper to go to the doctor and do the deal.

 

[Spinach]

Why? I take a drug test up to four times a year to keep my job and I don't feel like a criminal. I never know when they are coming, I report to work and am given a paper to go to the doctor and do the deal.

Because I would know that they are looking for criminals. I would also know that I was being subjected to a needless test because of someone else. I would feel pre-judged.

Another thought. Let's say that they find 1% of welfare recipients to be drug users. I highly doubt that it will take care of the cost of the drug tests, the care of the children removed from such a situation, and/or drug rehab for the guilty party. The cost would enormous, imo.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Because I would know that they are looking for criminals. I would also know that I was being subjected to a needless test because of someone else. I would feel pre-judged.

Why do you think they drug test people in some types of jobs? Because of the few who mess up and use drugs. You have to prove you are clean to keep your job in some lines of work. Most law are made do to the exception. I've never used drugs in my life but I have to have the test anyway, no one or goverment trust anyone.

 

[tinytim]

While I support it on one hand, I am concerned----I imagine myself going in to sign up for food stamps and being told that I have to take a drug test. I'd feel criminal. It has a stigma. Also, being told that I would have to pay to prove I wasn't a criminal would be humiliating.

To answer the post before this one.. yes I am talking about all PA.. FS, WIC, HUD.. Check... etc...

I also would be against making the applicant pay... The state should pay.
I'll address that next.

 

[billwald]

How about drug tests for church officials, pastors, deacons and elders?

 

[tinytim]

Because I would know that they are looking for criminals. I would also know that I was being subjected to a needless test because of someone else. I would feel pre-judged.

Another thought. Let's say that they find 1% of welfare recipients to be drug users. I highly doubt that it will take care of the cost of the drug tests, the care of the children removed from such a situation, and/or drug rehab for the guilty party. The cost would enormous, imo.

I think the percentage is up around at least 25%.. .If my experience is correct.

So a family receiving.. $400 in check.. $400 in FS... WIC.. and having their rent paid through HUD.. .of say $500/month... that would be at least $18,000 a yr the state is paying out to keep kids in a drug infested home. (And that doesn't even take into consideration Medicaid for adults...).. .I wouldn't want to cut the medicaid for the children.. .but if a person gets a check, they automatically get a medical card...

Now.. a drug test will run around $30 -$50...
That would be $17,950 that would be saved from just ONE family.

That money could be used to bolster foster parents... the ones that actually care... and maybe even a way to attract more good foster parents.

Now imagine that throughout WV there are 1000 homes receiving assistance that would lose the assistance because of positive drug results...

At $18,000 a yr.. that would be... $18,000,000 That's 18 Million!
With 18 Million dollars... the state could really do some good!

And I would say many more than 1000 homes would be affected...

 

[tinytim]

Oh.. I would rather have $18,000,000 spent on helping someone break their addiction than to keep the addiction up...

So even if we put them on some type of probation period.. and make them seek rehab.. it will better civilization...

Here is my thought...

And this is really showing my ignorance on how much families get.. but when I was working for DHHR.. this is how it worked...

If a family of 4 came in to sign up for FS...
If the parents were not working, they had to sign up for job service.. and seek a job..
If they quit their job.. or refused to seek it.. the parents part of the FS would be cut off...
IOWS...

If the parents were working or seeking employment.. they might receive $400.
That would break down to $100/ family member in a 4 member family...

If One of the parents didn't want to work.. the payment would be reduced by $100...

(I know this is oversimplified.. .but it is the principle I am driving at)...

So why not do this if one parent is tested positive for drugs?

 

[tinytim]

How about drug tests for church officials, pastors, deacons and elders?

Like I said earlier.. I wouldn't mind it..

Actually that may be a good idea....

 

[tinytim]

Tim
Be sure to bring this up on PS!:thumbs: :1_grouphug:

Maybe you can run with it over there.. I am doing all I can keeping up here.. it is pretty busy in my life now.

 

[Steven2006]

Just a guess here, but something tells me that the cost in actually trying to do this in a way that would be effective would cost an awful lot of money, maybe more than the assistance itself. Lets face it you can't just ask them to bring in a urine sample and expect an accurate system. That would mean you would have to have employ some type of staff to personally test all these people on a regular bases. That just sounds like more government to me not less. Just another program that will be poorly run and ineffective in the long run. No thanks.