Michigan is instituting a mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. Claiming they (welfare program) wants to ensure the safety of its recipients and to make sure that the money is being properly spent.

The ACLU is up in arms over the matter stating "We are dealing here ... with the suspicionless testing of adults" claiming that this will be unconstitutional and a violation of personal privacy.

I personally hope this program gets put in across the country. Would be nice to know the tax dollars are going to feed/cloth/provide shelter instead of getting a guy a dime bag.

Excellent idea.

so much for going on welfare after college :(











:D

unconstitutional and a violation of personal privacy.
They aren't being forced to take welfare ;)

I'm all for it..except where the person being refused has children that will be affected. In that case maybe refuse them some of the money...or pay them in food stamps...I dunno.

The real problem with this is the flagrant abuse of a social safety net program to try and institute a failed criminal policy. It's just as ethically bankrupt as giving companies tax breaks for requiring drug testing of their employees. One of the early underpinnings of American democracy was that Federal taxation powers must not be used as a side-ban method of implementing other policies, which has sadly gone completely out the window since the 30s.

There is nothing wrong with that sort of requirement if it makes sense for the program, but the way this is being implemented is disgusting.

Honestly, my first reaction to seeing this is very negative. This may surprise some of you here...

I've always been led to believe that welfare is as much of a necessity to this country as our road and interstate system, fire departments, police, ... but that's my black and white view of the world.

If it's not really needed, then why are we spending billions on it? I think it is necessity that has been a benefit to this country and its citizens - overall.

So now people who get a necessary benefit from our government are now being asked to give up some of their privacy in order to receive it. I think that is wrong.

Damned good thread Greystone, this should be interesting...

Employers do drug tests all the time. So does the military. These folks might as well face facts that everyone lives under the "Golden Rule".

~Whoever makes the Gold, makes the Rules.

Welfare wasn't designed so people can sit at home getting fat off McDonalds, smoking weed and playing X Box all day. It was meant as a temporary boost until you can get back on your feet or get enough skills to support yourself and your family. Personally I would rather see welfare go away completely, as it doesn't really accomplish much other than teach people how to be a mooch and abuse the system. It would be better off being replaced by something else which is better supervised and does not provide payment directly to recipients but instead provides much more life and jobskill training.

Perhaps something like a program that sets you up in a vocational school or similar training, provides yourself and your family with basic needs such as a cafeteria and living quarters (spouce would also attend training if need be), children would be provided daycare and attend schooling etc etc. You would also be taught how to manage your finances and how to prepare for and conduct an employment interview. When you graduate, you pay back the debt by working for the agency in your new trade and perhaps have a small amount alotted in an account you can't access until release from the program. All this time, you would NOT recieve a single thin dime, as your basic needs are covered. Food, shelter, clothing (probably a uniform) exercise facilities (use would be mandatory), access to computers and television during off hours. NOTHING would be designed for comfort but instead would be basic and rugged, as the idea is that you get your education and experience and then get out of the programs ASAP. Yes, it might be hard on smokers and drunks or drug addicts ..but hey..tough shit. Its a good bet that if that is your problem it will be cared for while you are in the program and closely monitered after. You are in the program to turn your life around and to get training, skills and the ever so important experience that employers require so you can get a solid job and support your family.

It could be set up by the government (preferably not) or a private agency (with the incentive to produce a profit) and run on a military installation that was closed, as such a program would have alot of the trappings of military life, only you are preparing your troops for the working world, not combat. You would have a contract that is legally binding, and breaching it by trying to run away, or do drugs or whatever would more than likely place you into the corrections system or just plain have you tossed out on the street with no hope of getting any further aid. I think that would accomplish more than just sending people a check every month in exchange for not doing a goddamn thing. There are probably programs like this in place already, but they would work very well if there was no other welfare programs in place.

Whoever makes the Gold, makes the Rules


The people with "The Gold" are supposed to be servile to the public. By and large the public hates programs that abuse Federal funding and taxation powers to implement law on the sly. Look at the wonders it's done for public education.

Another implicit assumption about these sort of sideban drug laws is that people using any amount of any substance are incapable of holding jobs, whereas I would posit that not only are people using alcohol are far more likely to be adversely affected, but that by the majority of drug usage in America is done by people succesfully holding down jobs. Anecdotal crack house raids are great publicity, but are about as significant relative to Joe Average Pot Smoker as plane crashes are to normal air travel.

Malse, I don't work and pay taxes so my money that the government claims stewardship over for the common good of the nation is spent to buy drugs under the guise of helping those less fortunate. Where as I can see your point that its a sneaky way of implimenting other policies, in this case I can agree with their reasoning.

Welfare doesn't work as it is. I stated that in the above post. It would be better if people were trained on how to be productive members of society by those with a vested interest in making sure that happens AKA NOT THE GOVERNMENT, who will keep on dishing money out reguardless if there is any actual results. If you take a welfare family, put them in a program like above and teach the husband how to be an excellent welder or automechanic, teach the wife how to be a good school teacher or even a welder herself and give the kids an education all while keeping the family unit together, you could get somewhere. Have the program provide these services they are training their members on to the public for a profit to offset the costs. That way their members can learn with the best equipment and the most up to date methods and be taught by people who are leaders in the field. Anyway, I feel that a private program will work better if it is held accountable by the consumer and the desire to please them because thats how the real world works.

Dear Lummus: FYI, Michigan already has a very strict 'workfare' policy, where recipients are required to undergo training and/or work in transitional programs (full-time I might add as of last year, and at least 24 hours being 'direct work', Michigan is scrambling to meet this requirement in rural areas) by federal mandate in order to receive their benefits, and child care is *not* covered as part of this. Also, if they receive food stamps, Medicaid, or Section 8 housing assistance, this is deducted from any cash they might receive; actual monies (that could conceivably be spent on drugs) received by welfare recipients in this day and age is typically very low (200.00/mo or less, it was around 183.00/mo in Texas last I looked).

As far as the drug testing issue goes, while I find this disgusting from the violation of privacy rights perspective, as well as Malse's point about legislative 'creep', I'm more inclined to take the view that this isn't so much about not wasting federal funds meant to be used for subsistance on narcotics, or helping people overcome substance abuse, as it is simply shrinking the rolls by any available means in light of a massive shortfall in revenue related to a loss of funding at the Federal level (and of course bragging rights, when the next year's statistics come out, on how many folks they managed to 'move off of welfare').

Whatever the motive, it doesn't seem very well thought out. For example: what happens to the children of individuals (since we're talking about a lot of single mothers here) who either 1) have a substance abuse problem or 2) consider the drug testing a violation of their privacy rights and refuse it? What about the mentally ill (a large chunk of the non-single mother contingent on welfare falls in this category, often of the paranoid schizophrenic flavor - these indivduals will *not* voluntarily drugtest)? Has any money been earmarked out of the presumed 'savings' from this program (that isn't eaten up by the costs of administering the drug tests, of course, and associated paperwork) for drug/alcohol treatment programs for the poor, not to mention child protective services for the kids that not only have the disadvantage of a using parent, but now a loss of benefits such as food stamps?

It never ceases to amaze me how much time, effort, and expense that some in our government seem to be willing to go to deny the most basic of services to some of the most helpless and/or wretched among us. Texas managed to shrink its CHIPs (children's health insurance for the poor) rolls by 147,000 last year by requiring that recipients (who, mind you, qualify for this program because of very low incomes) pay a co-payment of 15.00 per month *per child* for the program independent of any copays they would have to pay using the service... But I digress.

Anyway, Malse has a valid point in stating that alcohol abuse is a much more rampant problem among the poor than drug abuse, and considering how much red tape the welfare system is already wrapped in, how many hoops people already have to jump through to get benefits, and how small those benefits are in terms of actual cash, this measure not only seems invasive but silly. It's a piece of 'feel-good' policy designed to get some anti-drug zealot's rocks off, and will do nothing significant except cost money, increase confusion and distrust among welfare recipients and administrators alike, and cause more people, including children, to fall through the tatters of our safety net...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

To me this sounds like an excellent idea, at least good enough to give a try.

/Shrug. All good points.

I am still of the thinking that I don't think it should even be the government's job to care for the poor. They do a shitty job of it, and chances are they are getting overwhelmed. As the population continues to grow, so the does problem exponentially. The time WILL come when there is just too many people and not enough resources unless money is diverted from such things as defense, which won't happen any time soon. I do beleive that if you are taking the government dole, you have to play by their rules, and that might require you to not be taking money and using it to purchase things that are branded illegal by the very institution that gave you the money in the first place.

BTW, practices like this are happening in every sector that relies on government money, including the military. The goal is to cut spending and that means making access to the money will become more difficult and require more selectivity. We have a president and administration in office who spent ALOT of money on Homeland security, warfare in multiple countries (saddled with having to rebuild and provide security afterwards) and now natural disasters, thus landing the federal government very deeply in the hole, all the while granting tax cuts. Thanks to this irresponciable clown we have as a president who did not bother to do his homework on any aspect of his policies, everyone gets to tighten their belts, and there is going to be alot of things that will just seem unfair to down right violating human rights. You will find that if you want care for those that cannot do so for themselves, its going to have to come from charities, grants, foundations, trusts and private enterprise.

I also have to wonder at the administrative cost. I can't imagine ongoing drug testing on that scale comes cheap.

While I resent subsidizing slackers in general (and drug addicts in particular), I do recognize that the majority of welfare recipients *do* need assistance and are not blowing their income on dope. IMO one of the obstacles for people to get off the dole and into gainful employment is the lack of self esteem a recipient tends to have. Making them take drug tests seems just another slap to their face and may be counterproductive in terms of helping someone get off welfare since it reinforces the notion that they can't be trusted.

I am all for mandatory work/education-programs as part of receiving welfare assistance. But unless the job they are training for involves public safety, I would oppose mandatory drug testing.

It sounds like they're substituting one set of administrative costs for another. If they handle drug tests in the same manner as the prison system for which I work, the cost is about $33 per test. If a welfare check is, say, $250 a month, you'd need roughly 1 out of 8 recipients to fail the drug test in order to be cost effective. Otherwise, you end up with a nice political soundbite ("so-and-so got tough on welfare recipients who blow their money on drugs") but spend a lot of money doing so.

Even if we have to spend a bit more money, those people who normally would be buying drugs and supplying drug dealers with money are not any longer.

This is the reason I hate social programs; too many people take advantage of them. The people who abuse it ruin it for the people who truely are trying to turn their life around rather than just using it for drugs or sitting around all day.

The problem is the people who are doing the drugs are still going to be doing them regardless. If they are unemployed and not getting welfare they will just get their money from dealing drugs themselves or by theft of one sort or another. Either way, in reality we all end up paying anyway as long as those people are living that lifestyle.

As far as cost goes. Making up a figure...say a person gets $500/month in welfare. The drug test cost $25 (at my last job it did) and that person is denied passed on testing positive for cocaine. That is $475/month savings (not counting the overheade of paying people to administer the test and what not) but in the end, i think it will even out bcause you are not paying out so that money is going to a legit source.

As far as children and what now tahts a tough call. I hate to be harsh and say that tough crap for the kids. but if you have 4 kids and can afford to do drugs and feed them, then you are making too much off welfare.

No i do NOT belive the state should just kick them to the curb and say see ya, i think testing positive should yeild manditory counciling of some kind. Granted this will have a cost, but its a cost to improve someones life.

Good point was made, no one forces people to get on welfare.

As far as government even having welfare. I had to use welfare once, for 3 months and got off. I used the system as intended. To supplement a hard time. Without that program i would of seriously been in trouble. And i dont do drugs or anything that would cause me to be broke. So i supoer welfare as long as it has tight controls and time limits to prevent life long welfare people.-

Last thing to add in, it was hinted at the crime would up/ people would get them anyway. My opinion is if we pay them so crime doesnt go up its like saying "ok we will subsidize you to not commit a crime" which if crap.

people using any amount of any substance are incapable of holding jobs, whereas I would posit that not only are people using alcohol are far more likely to be adversely affected, but that by the majority of drug usage in America is done by people succesfully holding down jobs
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Studies have shown drinking a glass of wine or having a beer a day is actually good for you..smoking a joint a day is going to fuck your shit up. You don't need me to tell you this, everyone knows someone that's smoked weed at that rate for an extended period of time..and they are fried. Now add into that the fact that dope stays in your system far longer than alcohol.

I've worked in spots where the slower reactions can quite literally get you killed..and if you were to do those activities as a regular pot smoker it wouldn't be a question of if you got hurt/killed as much as when. That is one reason that a positive drug test got you the boot there.

Now, a drunk could kill off his liver(versus a doper's lungs), but it doesn't have as much of an effect as does pot when used proportionally(ie a 12oz:joint). He or she may get the shakes if they down a 6 pack every night(or more), but that would be the equivalent of several bowls/joints a day for smoking weed.

Incidently I sort of like the SF policy they've been trying, where they provide the food, the housing, and other basic needs..and the handout is something like $60 bucks a month.

Incidently, when a student(any student) gets federal grants or even student loans, they are required to attend workshops about personal finance, job interviews, etc.