PDA

View Full Version : Should people applying for any financial help.....



Lanie
11-05-2011, 02:48 PM
have to take a drug test?

Zathras
11-05-2011, 02:50 PM
If the money comes from taxpayer funds then yes. If they come from a private source then it's up to the provider to make the rules.

Lanie
11-05-2011, 02:52 PM
If the money comes from taxpayer funds then yes. If they come from a private source then it's up to the provider to make the rules.

Yeah, I would agree with that. What if it's a charity being helped by the government? (Example: Faith based charities)?

Zathras
11-05-2011, 02:58 PM
Yeah, I would agree with that. What if it's a charity being helped by the government? (Example: Faith based charities)?

Government money is the taxpayers money so yes drug testing should be done.

Novaheart
11-05-2011, 03:09 PM
There is no bigger welfare class than the politicians and the lobbyists. While I support drug AND ALCOHOL tests for welfare recipients, I would only support it if politicians were required to submit to random drug and alcohol tests.

Seriously, while I believe that the state has the authority to require these tests, I consider it grandstanding for the anti-welfarequeen society. The funny thing is that it won't affect the alleged welfare queen. The state doesn't have the authority to test people for food stamps or section 8, only for state programs like cash assistance in Florida.

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2011, 03:21 PM
Not in isolation. I'm not opposed to drug tests but I am opposed to using drug testing purely as a means to deny assistance or incarcerate people.

I think drug tests for financial help would be a good thing because drug addiction is a serious problem especially in low-income communities. Drug use and poverty are strongly linked.

The question is what happens if someone tests positive for drugs? I think what should be happened is they should be given free addiction treatment. They should be assigned drug counsellors and social workers to make sure they are working towards sustaining themselves or their families and not being caught in the cycle of drug abuse.

Most of the time, drug abuse isn't something people do for fun. It's often a symptom of abuse, domestic issues, sexual issues, or more. Very often people who are abusing drugs have undiagnosed psychological disorders, and they are using drugs as a form of self-medication, not to "party". Often times people have diagnosed psychological disorders, but they cannot afford expensive medication, so again they resort to alternative means. For some people, using drugs to cope with sexual abuse, or to self-medicate a psychological problem, spirals into an uncontrollable addiction that consumes their life and makes them effectively non-functional.

For these people, simply cutting them off of support or putting them in prison isn't going to do anything positive. They need psychological treatment, drug addiction treatment, job training, therapy, and other support systems.

I do NOT think it is a good idea to give drug abusers cash handouts and expect that to do something good for them. So I think drug tests combined with robust treatment programs will help people out.


Also, I do NOT think financial assistance like welfare or foodstamps should be given out for free without recipients doing work in exchange. Unless the person has some disability which prevents them from working, or unless they are already working part-time jobs but are still below the threshold, I think everyone should be required to do community service in exchange for income, housing, or food assistance.

I think making people volunteer with community service serves many goals. It keeps them in a productive mindset. Not working for long periods can get people "out of the loop". Activities like this keep them waking up in the morning, keeps them sober, keeps them busy, makes them feel productive and useful, helps other people who are in need, and fosters a sense of community responsibility which is important in areas with high poverty.

I think community service should be required (with some exceptions) in order to get:
Welfare
Foodstamps
Unemployment benefits
Subsidized education (which should be made available)
Housing assistance


Programs should encourage responsibility and help people in need, not punish the people who are most at need, or be simple handouts that can be easily taken advantage of.

Rockntractor
11-05-2011, 03:31 PM
Not in isolation. I'm not opposed to drug tests but I am opposed to using drug testing purely as a means to deny assistance or incarcerate people.

I think drug tests for financial help would be a good thing because drug addiction is a serious problem especially in low-income communities. Drug use and poverty are strongly linked.

The question is what happens if someone tests positive for drugs? I think what should be happened is they should be given free addiction treatment. They should be assigned drug counsellors and social workers to make sure they are working towards sustaining themselves or their families and not being caught in the cycle of drug abuse.

Most of the time, drug abuse isn't something people do for fun. It's often a symptom of abuse, domestic issues, sexual issues, or more. Very often people who are abusing drugs have undiagnosed psychological disorders, and they are using drugs as a form of self-medication, not to "party". Often times people have diagnosed psychological disorders, but they cannot afford expensive medication, so again they resort to alternative means. For some people, using drugs to cope with sexual abuse, or to self-medicate a psychological problem, spirals into an uncontrollable addiction that consumes their life and makes them effectively non-functional.

For these people, simply cutting them off of support or putting them in prison isn't going to do anything positive. They need psychological treatment, drug addiction treatment, job training, therapy, and other support systems.

I do NOT think it is a good idea to give drug abusers cash handouts and expect that to do something good for them. So I think drug tests combined with robust treatment programs will help people out.


Also, I do NOT think financial assistance like welfare or foodstamps should be given out for free without recipients doing work in exchange. Unless the person has some disability which prevents them from working, or unless they are already working part-time jobs but are still below the threshold, I think everyone should be required to do community service in exchange for income, housing, or food assistance.

I think making people volunteer with community service serves many goals. It keeps them in a productive mindset. Not working for long periods can get people "out of the loop". Activities like this keep them waking up in the morning, keeps them sober, keeps them busy, makes them feel productive and useful, helps other people who are in need, and fosters a sense of community responsibility which is important in areas with high poverty.

I think community service should be required (with some exceptions) in order to get:
Welfare
Foodstamps
Unemployment benefits
Subsidized education (which should be made available)
Housing assistance


Programs should encourage responsibility and help people in need, not punish the people who are most at need, or be simple handouts that can be easily taken advantage of.
so you want drug addicts to make a living off the sweat of everyone else.

Novaheart
11-05-2011, 03:35 PM
so you want drug addicts to make a living off the sweat of everyone else.

Does it say somewhere that the tests expose drug addiction? I thought a positive for pot would do you in. If that is the case, then why wouldn't the consumption of alcohol be equally unacceptable if the excuse for this is the fact that these people shouldn't be spending money on entertainment if they are asking for money from the state?

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2011, 03:41 PM
so you want drug addicts to make a living off the sweat of everyone else.

I want drug addicts to get treatment to end their addiction to drugs so they can support themselves. Drug addiction usually gets worse when the addict falls into harder situations. Whether they are self-medicating for a psychological problem, coping with trauma or abuse, or simply unable to deal with the troubles of life, having their only support stripped out from under them without addressing their addiction is only going to make their problem worse.

I don't think drug addicts should be given cash that they can use on drugs, they should be given more focused help, like food and clothes, but they should be limited on how much money they are able to get. Also, which I emphasized a lot, I think they should be given required addiction treatment. Anyone trying to get government assistance who uses drugs should be part of an addiction program, have a drug counselor, and have support to make them more productive.

If we only cut them off, it doesn't get rid of the problem , and we're just going to have desperate addicts at the end of their rope committing crimes either to survive or to sustain their addictions. If we put them in prison, we end up paying for their housing, food, clothing, and healthcare via taxes anyway, only prison is a much worse environment where they are more likely to come out worse than they were before.

Rockntractor
11-05-2011, 03:41 PM
Does it say somewhere that the tests expose drug addiction? I thought a positive for pot would do you in. If that is the case, then why wouldn't the consumption of alcohol be equally unacceptable if the excuse for this is the fact that these people shouldn't be spending money on entertainment if they are asking for money from the state?

Use all the drugs you like but don't expect the rest of us to pay your bills while you are buying them.

Novaheart
11-05-2011, 03:46 PM
Use all the drugs you like but don't expect the rest of us to pay your bills while you are buying them.

What about alcohol? You can get high on $5 worth of pot, maybe less, hell you can grow it in your flower box but $5 worth of beer won't even get you arrested.

Rockntractor
11-05-2011, 03:53 PM
What about alcohol? You can get high on $5 worth of pot, maybe less, hell you can grow it in your flower box but $5 worth of beer won't even get you arrested.

This isn't about drug legalization or alcohol use, start another thread.

Novaheart
11-05-2011, 09:39 PM
This isn't about drug legalization or alcohol use, start another thread.

Then define your goal and terms. Is the testing to exclude people who spend money on mood altering substances? Or is it to exclude people who break a law?

Rockntractor
11-05-2011, 10:53 PM
Then define your goal and terms. Is the testing to exclude people who spend money on mood altering substances? Or is it to exclude people who break a law?

See post #10 that sums up my opinion feel free to go wherever you want with the thread, I was just answering the question in the OP as stated.
I really don't care, I put more thought into what paper towel brand I buy.

AmPat
11-06-2011, 10:05 AM
Yes. If I pay the bill, they dance to my tune.:cool:

NJCardFan
11-06-2011, 12:05 PM
What about alcohol? You can get high on $5 worth of pot, maybe less, hell you can grow it in your flower box but $5 worth of beer won't even get you arrested.

Just another
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/102-0717102012-strawman.jpg
From Nova.

Kay
11-06-2011, 12:45 PM
I voted yes. Test positive and you get denied assistance.

Tipsycatlover
11-06-2011, 12:56 PM
If someone is being subsidized by the government, they shouldn't spend money on going to the movies much less booze and drugs.

DumbAss Tanker
11-06-2011, 01:09 PM
You have to take one for a job, why shouldn't you have to take one for getting money without even the formality of pretending to work?

txradioguy
11-06-2011, 02:47 PM
so you want drug addicts to make a living off the sweat of everyone else.

Of course he does because in Wee Wee's New Utopia there wouldn't be any laws against illegal drugs.

txradioguy
11-06-2011, 02:48 PM
Just another
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/102-0717102012-strawman.jpg
From Nova.


It's all he knows. Typical Liberal response to reason and logic.

Lanie
11-06-2011, 09:45 PM
You have to take one for a job, why shouldn't you have to take one for getting money without even the formality of pretending to work?

True.

Novaheart
11-06-2011, 10:58 PM
Just another

From Nova.

I realize that the law doesn't have to be reasonable, rational, or logical... but it would be nice if it were.

I also noticed that no one bothered to answer the actual question I asked. Is this policy to exclude people who are spending money on mood altering substances? If it is, then why isn't alcohol also covered, since alcohol is the best known drug for making one useless for work or looking for it?

You just don't want to be lumped in with the other drug users, but that's exactly what a person who uses alcohol is: a drug user.

Novaheart
11-06-2011, 11:00 PM
Yes. If I pay the bill, they dance to my tune.:cool:

You don't pay the bill for that. Your taxes went to put up red light cameras in DC.

Rockntractor
11-06-2011, 11:02 PM
I realize that the law doesn't have to be reasonable, rational, or logical... but it would be nice if it were.

I also noticed that no one bothered to answer the actual question I asked. Is this policy to exclude people who are spending money on mood altering substances? If it is, then why isn't alcohol also covered, since alcohol is the best known drug for making one useless for work or looking for it?

You just don't want to be lumped in with the other drug users, but that's exactly what a person who uses alcohol is: a drug user.

We should not have to pay the living expense of an alcoholic either, but like I said, it wasn't the question asked.

Wei Wu Wei
11-07-2011, 12:50 AM
Of course he does because in Wee Wee's New Utopia there wouldn't be any laws against illegal drugs.

I responded to the questions asked, you're just trolling.

Novaheart
11-07-2011, 01:18 AM
We should not have to pay the living expense of an alcoholic either, but like I said, it wasn't the question asked.

Is everyone who drinks alcohol an alcoholic?

RobJohnson
11-07-2011, 02:50 AM
If someone is being subsidized by the government, they shouldn't spend money on going to the movies much less booze and drugs.

or iPhones, video games, cable tv, etc

But they are poor! :D

Rockntractor
11-07-2011, 03:04 AM
Is everyone who drinks alcohol an alcoholic?

Yeah that is exactly what I said you stupid mother fucker!

Odysseus
11-07-2011, 09:21 AM
There is no bigger welfare class than the politicians and the lobbyists. While I support drug AND ALCOHOL tests for welfare recipients, I would only support it if politicians were required to submit to random drug and alcohol tests.
I think that they should be tested, if for no other reason than to explain some of their behavior. If Nancy Pelosi isn't high, then she's faking it brilliantly. And given the economic program of the Obama administration, I have no doubt that they put a towel under the door when they are "formulating policy".


so you want drug addicts to make a living off the sweat of everyone else.
Of course he does. That's how socialism works. He also wants them to be able to get high and do anything else that they want, as long as it's at the expense of "the man."


Then define your goal and terms. Is the testing to exclude people who spend money on mood altering substances? Or is it to exclude people who break a law?
Both, but specifically, illegal mood-altering substances which impair judgement and demonstrate gross disregard for the law. However, I'm perfectly willing to include alcohol under the tested substances. If a welfare recipient tests positive for alcohol during everybody else's working hours, then he's clearly in no condition to look for work or care for children.

Starbuck
11-07-2011, 09:23 AM
Define 'financial help'.

Then define 'drugs'.

Novaheart
11-07-2011, 12:55 PM
Yeah that is exactly what I said you stupid mother fucker!

I apologize. Your use of "drug addict" was not a general reference to anyone who tests positive, it was specific to your discussion with Wei Wei.

noonwitch
11-07-2011, 01:11 PM
I think we sold away a lot of our freedoms in the so called war on drugs. I'm opposed to most drug testing, in any circumstances.

Rockntractor
11-07-2011, 01:44 PM
I apologize. Your use of "drug addict" was not a general reference to anyone who tests positive, it was specific to your discussion with Wei Wei.

Sorry for my short temper.

Wei Wu Wei
11-07-2011, 06:48 PM
Of course he does. That's how socialism works. He also wants them to be able to get high and do anything else that they want, as long as it's at the expense of "the man."


Reading trouble?

Rockntractor
11-07-2011, 06:50 PM
Reading trouble?

Of course he was, everything you write is trouble.

Wei Wu Wei
11-07-2011, 07:15 PM
Hardy har har

I'm curious about the people who voted "no" on this poll. Noonwitch answered already but there's 2 more.

As for the war on drugs, I totally agree with your sentiment noonwitch concerning the war on drugs, but obviously drug use is still a problem. I think the war on drugs should be ended, but I think we should focus even harder on drug addiction, treating it as a medical issue, and getting people the help they need.

Drug-dependent people don't need to be handed free money to sustain their drug addiction, but they do need help.

Starbuck
11-07-2011, 07:26 PM
Hardy har har

I'm curious about the people who voted "no" on this poll. Noonwitch answered already but there's 2 more

Me.

Zathras
11-07-2011, 08:46 PM
Of course he was, everything you write is trouble.

I thought everything Wee Wee wrote was comedy....extremely bad comedy but comedy just the same.

AmPat
11-07-2011, 09:33 PM
You don't pay the bill for that. Your taxes went to put up red light cameras in DC.

I see. The taxes I pay are for legitimate Constitutionally allowed uses. All other money I send under threat of jail is used for what?:rolleyes: