View Full Version : It's about time!!!!
Only 49 more states to go....
Rep. Lonnie Napier Files Bill Requiring Drug Testing For Individuals Receiving Public Assistance
Posted: Jan 14, 2011 8:13 PM
Updated: Jan 14, 2011 8:16 PM
Share
Share
1968
FRANKFORT. (January 14, 2010) - Rep. Lonnie Napier, R-Lancaster (36th District) has filed a bill for the 2011 session that if passed would require drug and substance screening for any adults in Kentucky receiving public assistance. HB 208, if passed, would set up a mandatory random testing program for any adult that receives public assistance, food stamps, and state medical assistance.
"Let me say that public assistance is a good thing, especially given the continued rate of unemployment in our commonwealth," said Rep. Napier. "However given the fact that some may be abusing these programs, including using these funds to purchase drugs, it is essential that we require anyone receiving government assistance to submit to testing. Most employers require drug testing as a requirement for employment, and we need to do the same for those getting assistance through the government."
HB 208 would require random testing through the Cabinet for Health and Family Services as a prerequisite to an individual being declared eligible for public assistance, but would allow for exceptions if the individual has a prescription for a controlled substance. Rep. Napier points to the bi-partisan support of his proposal, which is being backed by legislators on both sides of the aisle.
"Who would want their children raised in an environment where money is being used for drugs instead of groceries," Rep. Napier added. "It is essentially that we protect those most vulnerable by making HB 208 law in Kentucky."
http://www.lex18.com/news/rep-lonnie-napier-files-bill-requiring-drug-testing-for-individuals-receiving-public-assistance/
lol This is gonna be hilarious!
SouthernDZ
01-18-2011, 07:00
Only 49 more states to go....
Rep. Lonnie Napier Files Bill Requiring Drug Testing For Individuals Receiving Public Assistance
This will last for as long as it takes a battalion of ACLU to swoop into Kentucky and kill it!
I know this bill will die because it makes too much sense.
Barbarian
01-18-2011, 07:14
This will last for as long as it takes a battalion of ACLU to swoop into Kentucky and kill it!
I'd say you're probably right, but I hope to God it passes. There are probably as many folks on "the draw" as there are that work here in KY. I'm sure there are those who need it, and I'll gladly give my part for them, but I'm freakin' sick of paying the way of freeloaders.:mad::mad::mad::mad:
mark46th
01-18-2011, 09:59
I would add mandatory Norplant(5yr birth control implant) for the women...
I would add mandatory Norplant(5yr birth control implant) for the women...
There ya go...thinking about Thailand and that WHO program we were involved in as a part of our CA mission back then.
"Can you SF Medics safely implant an IUD?"
"Well, I saw the movie and read the book, and I'm certainly no gynecologist...but I'll be glad to take a look."
Those were the days.
Richard :munchin
This will last for as long as it takes a battalion of ACLU to swoop into Kentucky and kill it!
I know this bill will die because it makes too much sense.
True....
If it succeeded though, it could catch on elsewhere quickly, getting wide national support.....jd
"Can you SF Medics safely implant an IUD?"
"Well, I saw the movie and read the book, and I'm certainly no gynecologist...but I'll be glad to take a look."
Richard
...improvised IUD's
Buffalobob
01-18-2011, 13:26
Kentucky is ranked seventh among states as far as obesity of their population. It would be interesting to know how many of them are too fat to work. I suppose that is not flag waving patriotism that makes headlines to inquire about fatness.
http://calorielab.com/news/2010/06/28/fattest-states-2010/
Dozer523
01-18-2011, 14:18
Kentucky is ranked seventh among states as far as obesity of their population. It would be interesting to know how many of them are too fat to work. I suppose that is not flag waving patriotism that makes headlines to inquire about fatness. Well hell, now were talkin'!
Let's drug test em -- they come up hot we'll incarcerate em (that's way cheaper then the dole) and de-babymakin-ulize em (transfer funds from the schools we won't need anymore cuz we are talkin about KY) And force em to get those Silastic Gastric Ring (that's what it's called). We will run the risk that state sales taxes will plummet as the hostess rack will no longer need re-filling.
You guys are trying way to hard:D
ReefBlue
01-18-2011, 14:23
I hope it passes . . . nationally.
If it passes, either on a state or national level, it will require a huge administration to do this, but then how much money would be saved by cutting huge amounts of people off when they pop positive?
Barbarian
01-18-2011, 15:05
transfer funds from the schools we won't need anymore cuz we are talkin about KY
Hey, c'mon now. Sum uv us ashully go too colluj.:D
...improvised IUD's
Sick humor. :D
I resemble that remark. :)
I would add mandatory Norplant(5yr birth control implant) for the women...
Yep.
More babies = more money.
Yep.
More babies = more money.
At a minimum, they should be able to identify the father.
At a minimum, they should be able to identify the father.
You ever watch Maury? It's like a train wreck. You can't turn away. Even after some huge fat chick none of us would do back in the "hoggin" days, drags 8 dudes onto that show for DNA tests... NONE of them the baby's daddy.
Not only is it sick to think of ONE dude sticking those hogs, but more than 8 in a MONTH! Jeebus...
How about substance testing for POLITICIANS AND LAWYERS? :D
At a minimum, they should be able to identify the father.
You'd like to think the baby mommas could...but it's probably quite a task.
TOMAHAWK9521
01-19-2011, 00:48
How about substance testing for POLITICIANS AND LAWYERS? :D
Curses! You beat me to it! :D
The presumption of guilt until proven innocent...what a novel idea...certainly our Founding Fathers must not have been aware of such a concept when authoring the Bill of Rights...or were they.
IMO, such myopic thinking, as well meaning as it may appear to some, does not bode well for a Democratic Republican ideal such as America presents itself as being to the world.
Richard
PedOncoDoc
01-19-2011, 08:25
The presumption of guilt until proven innocent...what a novel idea...certainly our Founding Fathers must not have been aware of such a concept when authoring the Bill of Rights...or were they.
I'll have to disagree with you, Richard. I do not think this is implied/presumed guilt any more so than a drug screen prior to employment. Perhaps a discussion on the appropriateness of drug screening programs for anyone other than convicted drug offenders is in order.
I was quite shocked to find out the current hospital at which I work did not perform drug screening prior to employment. Of course, it is in the city that holds the annual "Hash Bash"...:rolleyes:
Some interesting points:
Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k2/GovAid/GovAid.htm
Should Welfare Recipients Get Drug Testing?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125387528
Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients as a Condition of Eligibility
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Dozer523
01-19-2011, 13:30
I'll have to disagree with you, Richard. I do not think this is implied/presumed guilt any more so than a drug screen prior to employment. Perhaps a discussion on the appropriateness of drug screening programs for anyone other than convicted drug offenders is in order.
I was quite shocked to find out the current hospital at which I work did not perform drug screening prior to employment. Of course, it is in the city that holds the annual "Hash Bash"...:rolleyes:
Now I'm disagreeing with you, Doc. Taking and passing the employment drug test is a blatant presumption of guilt because the applicant is called to prove he is not guilty.
I do not think this is implied/presumed guilt any more so than a drug screen prior to employment.
In order to be hired for PSP now, not only is there the drug testing, but a polygraph, and extensive background check.
That is for a job you want.
I see no problem with requiring people that receive OUR tax dollars for support, at least be clean when it comes to drugs, and not be using that money for illegal drug buying purposes. Also, I don't think it should be cash, or a similar form of untracable item like food stamps. It should be a "credit" type card with a photo of the recipient, to insure they are used for proper purchases. Cigarettes and booze are not proper purchases.
Our whole "welfare system" needs revamped badly. VERY badly.
PedOncoDoc
01-19-2011, 15:31
Now I'm disagreeing with you, Doc. Taking and passing the employment drug test is a blatant presumption of guilt because the applicant is called to prove he is not guilty.
Perhaps they are testing basic coordination (con you pee in this cup without making a mess?), and the drug test is just an added bonus. :D
Dozer523
01-19-2011, 15:53
I see no problem with requiring people that receive OUR tax dollars for support. . .
Our whole "welfare system" needs revamped badly. VERY badly. In the olden days that system was called "the Poor Farm". (see the second paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poorhouse )
Or read the poem here. http://www.poorhousestory.com/over_the_hill.htm Is that really what we want?
Perhaps they are testing basic coordination (con you pee in this cup without making a mess?), and the drug test is just an added bonus. :D
A two-fer? That's different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0
In the olden days that system was called "the Poor Farm". (see the second paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poorhouse )
Or read the poem here. http://www.poorhousestory.com/over_the_hill.htm Is that really what we want?
Might change some peoples minds about riding the gravy train :cool:....
In the olden days that system was called "the Poor Farm". (see the second paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poorhouse )
Or read the poem here. http://www.poorhousestory.com/over_the_hill.htm Is that really what we want?
A two-fer? That's different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0
No, not at all. What we SHOULD be doing are programs like the CCC, and put these welfare people to work picking up garbage, and repairing our deteriorating State and National park system. Give them a orange vest and let them pick up garbage along the highway. At least then, they would be providing a service, instead of breeding another generation of welfare feeders.
Dozer523
01-19-2011, 22:31
No, not at all. What we SHOULD be doing are programs like the CCC, and put these welfare people to work picking up garbage, and repairing our deteriorating State and National park system. Give them a orange vest and let them pick up garbage along the highway. At least then, they would be providing a service, instead of breeding another generation of welfare feeders.One of the things that made the CCC and WPA successful was the work was meaningful and honorable. They were jobs people were proud of (to this day). Traditionally, roadside work crews wore stripes.
Working hard for a wage and providing for your family no matter what the job may be IS honorable. :lifter
I would shovel shit forever before I would collect a welfare check.
silentreader
01-19-2011, 23:59
Maybe this law (drug testing) should be applied to everybody attending public universities as well.
(First time with the pink font. Did I do good?)
Dozer523
01-20-2011, 08:26
Maybe this law (drug testing) should be applied to everybody attending public universities as well.
(First time with the pink font. Did I do good?) you did great.
Okay, welfare -- piss test / press labor; unemployment-- piss test / press labor; college -- piss test / summer press labor; Military service -- piss test; Public service -- piss test, weapons purchase -- piss test; Get on the bus/public transportation -- piss test; Apply for a job -- piss test; Attend public sporting event -- piss test.
Buy groceries -- piss test and cart/peer review.
We could catheter everyone at birth; then taking the samples could be really easy and quick -- probably wouldn't even notice it.
Except it will seem like an old WWII movie, "pay-pahs" will sound like "sam-pull" move along. Not that one . . . come with us."
But it's okay it's for the greater good.
de Oppresso what? No thanks.
Dozer523
01-20-2011, 08:49
"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
Helping is a hand up, not a hand out. ;)
Dozer523
01-20-2011, 20:22
Helping is a hand up, not a hand out. ;)
So it all comes down to "up" or "out". Thank goodness there's a litmus test for that. TTFN.
Maybe this law (drug testing) should be applied to everybody attending public universities as well.
(First time with the pink font. Did I do good?)
Lets even go a step further a piss test people when they try to register their Car:D
Okay-- Piss test = oppression. Illegal drug use= a basic human right.
Gotcha.
1stindoor
01-21-2011, 09:05
Buy groceries -- cart/peer review.
I agree...I'm tired of my taxes being used to feed people who are overweight!
Ho Hos should not be Government subsidized.
Dozer523
01-21-2011, 09:22
Okay-- Piss test = oppression. Illegal drug use= a basic human right.Gotcha. :rolleyes: You got the first part right.
Here is the deal.
We have laws that are ultimately regulated by the Bill of Rights.
Certain acts are criminal and should be discouraged with punishment.
If a crime is suspected authorities investigate with a warrant that specifies charges and a limitted search.
Accussed is reminded of rights and gets a lawyer to help protect them.
In an open trial, presided over by a Judge who knows WTF he is doing and WTF everyone else is supposed to do, guilt beyond a resonable doubt is determined by a jury.
Problems with your scenario?
One, being poor ain't a crime and neither is bein' lazy.
Two, Just because you don't like the way someone lives doesn't mean they don't have rights or allow you to make assumtions and forego due process.
But. how about this? You enforce your brand of justice and
I'll have you pissed tested because you don't understand the US legal system and the Constitution.
You must be on drugs.
At least then, they would be providing a service, instead of breeding another generation of welfare feeders. I think the phrase from the 1930's was "useless eaters". sorry Grog, I'm not interested in your Brave, New World. (I read the book. read 1984, too.)
:cool::cool:Problems with your scenario?
... being poor ain't a crime and neither is bein' lazy.
That's gonna be my new signature when I get up the energy to change it.
In order to drive my truck on public roads - my consent to testing for DUI is an express condition of my getting a driver's license. I just looked at my license and it states: “operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law.”
Because applying for and receiving welfare assistance is not mandatory, drug screening should simply be viewed as a reasonable condition of assistance, similar to the strings attached to obtaining a driver’s license – or like many - who are “forced” to agree to a drug test in exchange for a paycheck, job, grant, etc.
Moreover, a drug screening policy for welfare recipients should not be considered punitive. Rather, it should be considered benevolent - for if you truly care about the poor - you'll be concerned enough to assist them with their unhealthy dependence on illegal drugs. If, according to ACLU information, approximately X% of the welfare population is using illegal drugs then we can help that X%.
If MADD became MAWROD – mothers against welfare recipients on drugs - this concept would be considered a no-brainer.
But, what would an all caring - ACLU, NPR, Michael Moore, the Urban League and Ezra Klein do?
Helping is a hand up, not a hand out. ;)Nor is it backhanded humiliation. What we SHOULD be doing are programs like the CCC, and put these welfare people to work picking up garbage, and repairing our deteriorating State and National park system. Give them a orange vest and let them pick up garbage along the highway. At least then, they would be providing a service, instead of breeding another generation of welfare feeders.
Once, when I needed money I had to join the Teamsters and piss in a cup. For a variety of reasons, I wanted to do neither, but I did want the job.
So, I joined the Teamsters, stayed up all night studying for my urine test and passed.
I considered both events to be a little humiliating – but sometimes ya do what ya gotta do. No blood – no foul.
TrapLine
01-21-2011, 16:14
Last night I received confirmation that I passed the drug test required for the new position I will start next month. I did not feel violated, which was unfortunate considering the attractive test administrator.:D
I did not feel violated, which was unfortunate considering the attractive test administrator.:D
How rude of her to not at least offer to hold the cup. ;)
Congrats on the new position !
Edited... Nevermind, not worth it.
Will the call for drug testing expand to include all recipients of entitlements?
Will the call for drug testing expand to include all recipients of entitlements?
IMHO, who really knows - your crystal ball is as good as mine.
Will the teeth gnashing about testing welfare recipients ever end?
In the meantime, many folks have pissed, will piss and are pissed - that I do know.
IMHO, who really knows - your crystal ball is as good as mine. In which case, you're in trouble. In 1997, I augured that Tim Duncan would be the next Elden Campbell. In 2000, I predicted that pork rinds would replace croutons. In 2006, I predicted that Love Monkey would be the next great television show. (Notice the lack of pink.:o)Will the teeth gnashing about testing welfare recipients ever end?Like you, I don't know. But I think it--the gnashing--should either stop or undergo a drastic change of tone.
Will the call for drug testing expand to include all recipients of entitlements?
I for one would love to see the lords of wall street have to do "observed" drops once a month.
In which case, you're in trouble. In 1997, I augured that Tim Duncan would be the next Elden Campbell. In 2000, I predicted that pork rinds would replace croutons. In 2006, I predicted that Love Monkey would be the next great television show. (Notice the lack of pink.:o)
Agreed - given your recent admissions above - your crystal ball may not be all that good (notice no pink here either). ;)
While it is true that some courts may have opined on the matter of drug testing welfare recipients - the Supreme Court has yet to respond.
Until that time, there is time for reasonable folks to differ on the issue.
Hell some folks want to see Charlie Sheen test monthly - but those tests may be paternity, sanity, etc., still others just may want to watch.
Dozer523
01-21-2011, 19:06
In order to drive my truck on public roads - my consent to testing for DUI is an express condition of my getting a driver's license. I just looked at my license and it states: “operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law.” And on the pink slip passed out by employers where exactly does it state: “applying for unemployment benifits to which you are entitled constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law.” BTW you are subject to sobriety testing to protect the public from you when you chose to get drunk without regard for your fellow citizens.
Because applying for and receiving welfare assistance is not mandatory, drug screening should simply be viewed as a reasonable condition of assistance, similar to the strings attached to obtaining a driver’s license – or like many - who are “forced” to agree to a drug test in exchange for a paycheck, job, grant, etc. It is unreasonable because there is no reason to believe one is a criminal simply because they are unemployed or availing themselves of public assistance. Try not feeding your kids because you're too proud to accept public assistance which is not mandatory and see how long your starving (but proud) children stay out of the foster care system.
Moreover, a drug screening policy for welfare recipients should not be considered punitive. Rather, it should be considered benevolent - for if you truly care about the poor - you'll be concerned enough to assist them with their unhealthy dependence on illegal drugs. If, according to ACLU information, approximately X% of the welfare population is using illegal drugs then we can help that X%. Any violation of anyone's fourth ammendment rights, any violation of due process is punitive.
That is a level of benevolence remminds me of the parabale (recently posted) of the collared dog and the hungry wolf. I'll go withthe wolf.
If MADD became MAWROD – mothers against welfare recipients on drugs - this concept would be considered a no-brainer.
But, what would an all caring - ACLU, NPR, Michael Moore, the Urban League and Ezra Klein do?[/QUOTE] When we have WAWROD we will have sunk to a new low.
You want to piss me? Fine, bbut you better have probably cause or the ACLU will sue your ass. :D
Entire post #54
We do know that it is currently an open legal issue as to whether a test for illegal drug usage in exchange for welfare benefits is unreasonable or not.
Generally speaking, in order to be a violation of the 4th Amendment - a search must, in fact, be unreasonable.
We do know that drug tests can currently be required as a condition for some employment. That is, drug testing is currently considered reasonable under the law.
We do know that one need not be a criminal nor must there be that magic "probable cause" in order to be tested and considered for a job. But, yes, one must consent to the test in order to be considered for the job.
It does not seem to me that it is a giant leap in logic - to suggest that such tests might then be requested in exchange for public assistance.
I didn't like testing - but I did it in exchange for a job - pride aside.
If I have to drug test for a job - might it be considered a reasonable condition that a welfare recipient be asked to test for illegal drug usage in exchange for (our taxpayer) money.
Moreover, a drug addled parent (and those poor children) might benefit from someone caring enough to test. Treatment for a drug addicted parent is not always punitive. The fact is, the same example you use i.e., of the parent too proud to test and not feeding their kids - can be reversed and suggested that one might be too drug addled to feed their kids, too - both hyperbole - for purposes of this discussion.
And, if (in your example) a parent is not feeding a kid b/c they're too proud to test then they (parent and children) have more problems than pride. You can't eat pride - many would say - hey addict it ain't all about you. You are making my case for drug testing.
Bottom line, I don't want you to piss - I don't want to piss - I don't want anyone to piss - but given the world we live in - I do not think that it is an unreasonable request for welfare recipients to be tested for illegal drug use and such addicts should be provided treatment. In fact, I have argued that it (testing and treatment) may reduce long term costs and improve life for those addicts who seek treatment (and their children).
Reasonable people can differ - this is an important debate.
Dozer523
01-22-2011, 17:52
Any requirement to test for illegal substances or activities without a warrant thata will deny one something to which they are entitled to by law is unreasonable. I didn't say the parent was to proud to be tested for drugs I said they were to proud to apply for assistance. Oh that's different.
I cannot help but notice that many of the specific references to the drug using non-producing welfare cheats seem to reference citizens of minority. And that is a tad shameful.
I challenge you to substitute gun ownership for UE or PA and see what happens to your power of speech.
Anyway, good luck getting the law changed and getting it past SCOTUS.
I'm now gonna do my Forrest Gump impression, "An that's all I'm gonna say abut that.":D
The Reaper
01-22-2011, 22:33
If mandatory urinalysis is unconstitutional, then someone better tell the US military, because they have been testing employees and punishing them based on the results for 30 years without being successfully enjoined against doing so.
TR
Does the cost to the taxpayers of having to do all this drug testing bother anyone?
Hmm.
Does the cost of paying for thousands of people, some from generation to generation, on welfare bother anyone?
As a MAJ (read laptop PPT toter and keypad pounder) on the Civil-Mil Ops staff of the TrashCom for 2 years, I averaged 8 (must've been a 'lucky' 'random' SSAN) unannounced UAs per year - passed 'em all except for one after I'd been eating some of those AAFES poppy seed muffins for awhile - it felt a bit awkward going about business as usual pending the results of a more finite testing with gas chromatography mass spectroscopy at Landstuhl to make sure I wasn't doing opiates - don't know what that cost the govt but if they'd ever tested for caffeine, I'd have been toast.
I can only imagine the time, bureaucracy, and costs (equipment, staff, paperwork, facilities, legal assistance, etc) of running such a program x some big number and - based on the studies at post #23 - have to wonder at its cost-benefit ratio. :confused:
DOD FY 2011 Requested funding for their programs - $140.0 million (which is a reduction in the 2010 budget)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
"I'll piss in 9 jars if that's what them shoe clerks wanna do this mornin', but PT's gonna get extended. I'll guarantee you that."
SGM Billy Lee, 1/7 SFG(A), upon learning of a BN urinalysis.
"I'll piss in 9 jars if that's what them shoe clerks wanna do this mornin', but PT's gonna get extended. I'll guarantee you that."
SGM Billy Lee, 1/7 SFG(A), upon learning of a BN urinalysis.
C-1/7th SFG. :D
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
01-23-2011, 10:42
Right, but the cost v benefit that Richard was mentioning is what I'm talking about. One of the articles Richard posted suggested $20,000 per year per tested individual. Presumably many will pass the test. So you've paid for the test and then the benefits.
Some won't. But you've still paid at least 20k for that person. If you hadn't tested that person, and just given him benefits -- would it be less or more than the 20k?
I think that would be a gross exaggeration of the expenses involved. Of course, the government bureaucracy of administering a program adds significantly to even simple program costs.
Frankly, I would rather put people back on the track to responsible behavior, like being drug free, than to spend the money rewarding poor decisions and encouraging misconduct.
Judging from the misogynistic lyrics of popular hip-hop tunes, impregnating as many different women as possible and siring progeny across the community while abandoning those children and ducking any significant support or parenting is a laudable goal.
Fifty years ago, black and white families had roughly similar percentages of married couples, cohabitating was unheard of, and children out of wedlock were a humiliation, not a goal. Can anyone look at today's society and say that what we have is an improvement?
If I wanted to destroy a culture and their family units, and doom their children to an endless cycle of addiction, impoverishment, and incarceration, this would be a excellent plan to do so. And they are doing it to themselves, with the support of a few public figures and politicians.
Requiring recipients of public assistance to be drug free? What is next, making people further their education and get jobs?
TR
The Reaper
01-23-2011, 10:48
"I'll piss in 9 jars if that's what them shoe clerks wanna do this mornin', but PT's gonna get extended. I'll guarantee you that."
SGM Billy Lee, 1/7 SFG(A), upon learning of a BN urinalysis.
Billy was the CO SGM of A-2-7 when I knew him, but that does sound like him and The Plantation.
TR
PedOncoDoc
01-23-2011, 10:51
I think that would be a gross exaggeration of the expenses involved. Of course, the government bureaucracy of administering a program adds significantly to even simple program costs.
It never ceases to amaze me how much cost is tacked on for bureaucracy. Performing the tests would be relatively cheap after an up front cost to purchase the appropriate equipment. Of course, you need people to review these results and then they need to be sent to the local unemployment office. Someone needs to receive the records which will need to be verified then filed and maintained. The positive test needs to be reported to the individual, who will undoubtedly cry, "false positive test, I want a retest" and the cycle starts all over again.
Frankly, I would rather put people back on the track to responsible behavior, like being drug free, than to spend the money rewarding poor decisions and encouraging misconduct...
...If you require recipients of public assistance to be drug free, what is next, making people further their education and get jobs?
Careful - you'll upset the ACLU talking like that. What about their inalienable right to "pursuit of happiness"?:rolleyes:
Common sense and personal accountability are no longer expected and seem to be tolerated less and less. :mad:
C-1/7th SFG. :D
Richard :munchin
I think C Co. SGM was Ducky Wilson at that time. The Reaper's right; Billy Lee was A.
Heard it was a blast working for him down in Tegu 'round about then. Spend all day at the beer tent, then go to the ville.:D
In the end, personally, I am not altogether concerned whether the answer to the simple - but tough - question whether drug testing is a valid condition precedent for welfare payments be answered. As to the costs of testing - some might say we can't afford not to test - the current way of doing things hasn't worked out too well.
But, I am thoroughly convinced that - currently - the question should, no, must be asked.
And, for a variety of reasons it must to be asked without the inquirer being labeled a racist or nut job, either.
After all, drug testing certainly seems universally unpopular. Google something about drug testing in the workplace and there are literally hundreds of articles (on one search I got something like 38 million hits) and dozens of bureaucracies (some with tax dollar support) opining, at various degrees, about the evils of drug testing.
Yet, we all know that drug testing in exchange for a paycheck does take place, today.
Why the fuss then when we ask whether current testing should be extended to the limited universe of welfare recipients?
Notwithstanding the constitutional arguments for a moment, at its essence, the question could be viewed as one of accountability (at many levels) could it not?
Well, we all know that it is much easier to yell “unconstitutional” because our very constitution was originally set up to limit government in our lives - not permit the level of intrusiveness that we all currently tolerate (sadly, that shipped has sailed). It is certainly much easier (for me and others) to consider drug testing unreasonable and hence, unconstitutional, because one can easily read all those nicely prepared arguments and studies loaded up by the ACLU, et al. Hell, they may even be correct - but IMO that is not the most important point of this discussion.
No, the ACLU does not need my help to buttress their arguments. Actually, the pendulum seems to have swung and now, it seems, that folks respectfully requesting accountability out of their government – are the ones that need the help today.
As you know, the government now controls the auto industry, mortgage lending, student loans, health-care and they are now eyeing the investment banking industry as well. There is little in our life that isn't controlled, regulated, licensed, taxed or otherwise must meet with federal government approval, much of this in just the last few years. Not to mention the state and local bureaucracies.
IMHO for far too long, we taxpayers have not asked enough tough questions nor imposed sufficient conditions on how our hard earned money has been spent by these bureaucrats - my bad.
For the most part, we taxpayers have plowed along, worked hard, did the right things, paid our fair share of taxes, scrimped and saved to put 20% or more down on our homes, paid our mortgages, paid our student loans, took care of and take care of our families – the young, the old, the aging, the terminally ill and yes, the addicted. We pissed when asked to and made little or no fuss. We see the abuse in the system and that is what frustrates us.
Quite frankly, I like many others, were asleep while the bureaucrats plundered.
So, IMHO, with respect to this issue - it is asking this tough question that is most important - raising the issue of accountability – not so much the answer. As I have said before in another comment - I have pissed, we will piss, but we are pissed (and not just in the English slang version). ;) But, I do think that I will savor a finger or three of Glenlivet Nadurra - aged 16 years - later tonight. Cheers.
Right, but the cost v benefit that Richard was mentioning is what I'm talking about. One of the articles Richard posted suggested $20,000 per year per tested individual.
But if one is going to look at drug tests through the lens of a cost-benefit analysis, then one could also look at welfare in like manner. Given the cost of welfare and its associated programs, what is the benefit to our nation and our society?
On the other hand, avoidance of illicit drugs seems to be a moral issue within our society. I get the impression that helping the poor is seen in a similar light. But if we're going to go down the path of moral obligation to help those less fortunate, then I don't suppose we should be surprised when a duty such as remaining drug-free is imposed on the same basis.
Dozer523
01-23-2011, 19:36
If mandatory urinalysis is unconstitutional, then someone better tell the US military,TR how was Shot? didja have a good time?
Malnourished, homeless and uneducated kids that become malnourished, ill, unemployed homeless adults? Yes we have that now, but how much will that increase without any public assistance whatsoever.
Only two choices?
Who really buys $20 grand annually for testing one person - a swab can't be that much to gather, test, interpret and communicate. If it really costs $20 grand to do that - we are really in more trouble than I thought.
Is it really reasonable to assume that a pre-employment screening test costs $20 grand a pop?
Here is one result of a very quick online search: price ranges between approx. $9 - $12 - results in minutes.
Saliva Oral Screen Multi Drug Test Kit (6 drugs)
Oral Screen Saliva Multi Drug Screen Test Kit (AMP/MAMP/COC/OPI/THC/PCP)
The New Saliva Oral Screen Multi Drug Test Kit (6 drugs)is a one-step chromatographic immunoassay device for the qualitative detection of Amphetamine, Opiates, Phencyclidine, THC (Marijuana), Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and their metabolites in saliva.
Testing for drug abuse in saliva is becoming more widespread all over. In addition, Saliva (Oral Fluid) Multi Drug Screen Test Kit, contrary to current popular drug tests that require the individual to donate urine, is an oral fluids (Saliva) drug test and is top of the line product, almost unbeatable for any adulterants. Oral fluids drug testing detects active drugs present in the saliva.
http://www.meditests.com/or4salmultes.html
NMap has a good point, BUT are we willing to pay the price as a society that will result in NO social safety-net? Malnourished, homeless and uneducated kids that become malnourished, ill, unemployed homeless adults? Yes we have that now, but how much will that increase without any public assistance whatsoever?
(Sorry TR, I know you hate when I do that, but the Socratic method sinks into every damn pore)
Are we willing to pay that price today? Clearly not.
Can we continue to spend as we are currently - with 40% of spending representing new debt? (Please see table 1-2, page 2, at the LINK (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/BudgetProjections.pdf) )? That seems unsustainable. More pointedly, we will hit the wall as a society.
If we continue as we are, we will see what happens with little or no social safety net. We'll have all that you mentioned, along with more crime, few police, and a medical system that is unavailable to the bottom 4 quintiles.
So...unless that's the desired future...we (as a nation and a society) might wish to think long and hard about what we gain versus what we lose. Because that 40% gap mentioned above is going to hit. I suspect sooner rather than later. When it does, the figurative knives will come out.
Which cohort costs America more--welfare scofflaws or tax scofflaws?
I've never seen any gov bureaucracy that operated inexpensively and efficiently.
Amen.
Yea, but I'm not sure we could get away with some test you can buy at any drug store for $30.
I'm pretty confident that we could.
Look at that range $9, $30, $20,000.
For a bit of realism - consider what a reasonable for-profit business (a business that would be doing thousands of tests monthly) might reasonably pay for a pre-employment screening test.
I suspect that we could get a good rate from a reputable supplier.
Now, I'm not talking about the typical bureaucrat do the bidding or negotiating -- in my fantasy, I envision a minimally competent, reasonably prudent person, who can use the telephone, and can use Google - well, since this is a fantasy - this person spends taxpayer money like it's their own and let's give this reasonable person a small dose of common sense too. ;) I think we could procure a drug test for much less than $20,000 a pop. Somewhere between $9 and $30 a pop - I'll leave that to the experts.
There's going to need to be paperwork, and record keeping and doctors and labs and all the money, employment benefits for all the people involved in the testing process.
Are there appeals processes? Administrative law judges?
Right, 'cause there's no paperwork now...maybe we should unionize 'em or (gasp) heaven forbid come up with a lower cost solution -I'm sure there's no waste there now. We've already seen that we can probably drop that $20,000 per test figure quite a bit. But, you've got to want to do it.
I've never seen any gov bureaucracy that operated inexpensively and efficiently.
True that - it's probably past time to operate differently. We can do better - I'm just not so sure that big government and their ilk will.
Gotta makes sure I save enough from my govt gimme to have a cleansing kit handy or to buy a bottle of clean urine from the kid next door for the next time I have to get tested down at the local HHS or post office 'cause nobody in there ever wants to watch me pee in that bottle. :rolleyes:
http://www.drugtest.org/
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Damn, where's Billy Mays (of OxicotinClean fame) when you need him - NutraCleanse !
And here I was anticipating positive ;) results coming from those drug tests - and there's the kryptonite - one of 38 million hits on Google.
Why, do I suspect that this kit won't cost $20 grand, either.
No doubt, if society doesn't want to change, there are dozens of reasons not to try a new approach.
So we take a woman who is otherwise qualified to receive $4800 per year in food stamps and we spend another $20,000 per year testing her once a year.
I get them often (not for drug use, medical reasons)and they are not that expensive. When I was hired I did take a drug test, IIRC it was a few hundred dollars. A once per year blood test will not cost $20K.
Even if the government administers it. :p
Right, 'cause there's no paperwork now...maybe we should unionize 'em or (gasp) heaven forbid come up with a lower cost solution -I'm sure there's no waste there now. We've already seen that we can probably drop that $20,000 per test figure quite a bit. But, you've got to want to do it.
True that - it's probably past time to operate differently. We can do better - I'm just not so sure that big government and their ilk will.
I think "the plan" for today's Odamacare includes free screenings. Records gonna be kept, doctors, nurses, clerks employed. Toss the drug analysis on top of what's coming.
And let those who test positive pay by deduction from whatever additional chances they are given until their benefits are terminated. Low cost, I suspect.
And let those who test positive pay by deduction from whatever additional chances they are given until their benefits are terminated. Low cost, I suspect.
Absolutely - this is just one method to address payment for drug testing - and it should not add to costs.
As I have suggested previously - we have to - as a society - want to change how we approach problems - and then we can improve things - with testing we get people moving on the right path AND reduce the costs to society of getting there. Lords knows we've thrown billions at the problem already with poor results. But we have got to change how we think. It is easy to take something complex and make it more complex - but it is truly difficult to take something complex and make it simple.
Here's another thought - could we tie a positive test to a brief health care meeting/discussion with a medical professional treating addiction as well as other health care issues- preventative medicine is often less expensive in the long term. I meant it when I suggested that I might expect some positive results from testing. ;)
Absolutely - this is just one method to address payment for drug testing - and it should not add to costs.
As I have suggested previously - we have to - as a society - want to change how we approach problems - and then we can improve things - with testing we get people moving on the right path AND reduce the costs to society of getting there. Lords knows we've thrown billions at the problem already with poor results. But we have got to change how we think. It is easy to take something complex and make it more complex - but it is truly difficult to take something complex and make it simple.
Here's another thought - could we tie a positive test to a brief health care meeting/discussion with a medical professional treating addiction as well as other health care issues- preventative medicine is often less expensive in the long term. I meant it when I suggested that I expect some positive results from testing. ;)
Some of the welfare recipients that are so against testing could actually be led kicking and screaming to a better life.There's nothing new about the proposal to test welfare recipients for drug use. It is simply the digital version of four of America's longest running traditions.
Until at least two of these traditions are addressed in a meaningful way, sustainable forward progress is unlikely.
Hopefully, the coming Congress will consider restructuring public policy in a variety of areas - it is obvious that the old ways have not worked. YMMV.
Until at least two of these traditions are addressed in a meaningful way, sustainable forward progress is unlikely.
And which two of these '...isms' do you think are most in need of addresing now? :confused:
Richard :munchin
And which two of these '...isms' do you think are most in need of addressing now? :confused:
Richard :munchinQP Richard--
The toughest two--sexism and classism.
The toughest two--sexism and classism.
Well, in Vermont, the law says women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Well, in Vermont, the law says women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchinI can tell that it's an issue that gnaws on you as well.
I can tell that it's an issue that gnaws on you as well.
One of the many reasons I live in Texas. ;)
Richard :munchin
One of the many reasons I live in Texas. ;)
Richard :munchinYeah, but Jessica Simpson managed to gum up the works out your way a few years back.
Yeah, but Jessica Simpson managed to gum up the works out your way a few years back.
For a non-grad from high school, the girl has done quite well for herself. Is this a great country or what. :D
Richard :munchin