[purchasviagra]

States seek to link public assistance, drug testing - USATODAY.com

Can't pass a drug test? No more benefits for you.

[CuittisIL]

PS, yes Pennsylvania is considering such a move.

[CHEAPSOFTOEMONLINE]

Can't wait to hear the debates on this one in PA.
I'd love to hear the reasoning of any politician who opposes such a policy.

I can see protests in the streets now.

[chodeasyday]

States seek to link public assistance, drug testing - USATODAY.com

Can't pass a drug test? No more benefits for you.

Seems like a law that makes people feel good, but has little practicle value. What percentage of the unemployed are umemployed becuase of drug abuse. I'd wager the number is small, so all you are going to do make the guy who owns the drug testing company rich. Also, this completely ignores alcohol abuse which is probably a much bigger problem.

[WordofViagra]

I would really like to know how many people this would actually "delete" off the rolls.

Plus, who's gonna benefit from all that additional drug testing. Do the applicants have to pay for the screening or does the state?

[tLO0hFNy]

Seems like a law that makes people feel good, but has little practicle value. What percentage of the unemployed are umemployed becuase of drug abuse. I'd wager the number is small, so all you are going to do make the guy who owns the drug testing company rich. Also, this completely ignores alcohol abuse which is probably a much bigger problem.

robot I think this cuts across all state administered programs, which would also include state housing assistance programs; not just unemployment insurance.

[machpamb]

robot I think this cuts across all state administered programs, which would also include state housing assistance programs; not just unemployment insurance.

Still, is drug abuse that big of a problem accross the board in these programs? To me the cost and scope of this drug testing sounds more expensive and cumbersome than the supposed problem that it is trying solve. It is just pandering to certain constituants who like to think that the poor are all poor because they are lazy dope smokers.

[RicardoHun]

Laws requiring passing a drug test as a condition of benefits could run afoul of the Constitution, says Jay Rorty, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Criminal Law Reform Project.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that “suspicionless searches,” including random drug testing, violate Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, except in cases where there’s a “special need,” such as public safety, Rorty says. I don't understand this. If the US Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that random drug testings violated the 4th Amendment, why are they still being done today?

How could it violate the 4th Amendment by making people who receive cash assistance and housing assistance show up a few times a year for random drug testings?
I see no other state has yet to actually pass this legislation so we have no info on the success/failure of the policy.

[Jackson]

I don't understand this. If the US Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that random drug testings violated the 4th Amendment, why are they still being done today?

Almost all drug testing, that I know of, is done in the context of 3 activities: employment screening, school athletics, and the justice system.

The first two are not covered by the 4th amendment. They are considered voluntary actions and therefore any 'search' under the 4th amendment is automatically considered 'reasonable' (the same argument is used to justify airline security measures). The last item meets the probable cause threshold in the 4th amendment. I've probably mucked up the exact legal arguments but that's the general idea.

I'm not as confident as the ACLU spokesman is that the Court would find testing as a condition for benefits unconstitutional. It seems like you could make a similar "voluntary action" argument, and the Court has already allowed drug convictions to be used to disallow student aid (which the ACLU challenged). Obviously convictions and random testing aren't exactly the same, but it seems like the logic would be very similar.

[KellyMP]

Don't want to take a test? Find a job.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/apr...ll-50000-jobs/

[jgztw2es]

On Welfare? How About a Drug Test? | PhillyNow | A blog about Philadelphia news, politics and culture by Philadelphia Weekly


Private companies and government agencies, including the agencies responsible for organizing welfare recipients, subject their employees to drug screening. Welfare is an interim pay check. Subjecting recipients to drug tests is no more a violation of one's civil liberties than requiring random drug tests at the Department of Social Services.

And in order for it to be Unconstitutional, it has to involve rights guaranteed in the the Constitution. As far as I know, welfare and food stamps are not covered by the Constitution. If someone doesn't want to be subjected to drug screening, they do have a choice.

Personally, I'd rather see the funds strictly enforced than spend a fortune screening for drugs. Supply them directly with healthy food or greatly restrict their options, cut the checks directly to their landlords.

Drugs are an honest mistake, and addicts know that they're wrong. But there is a large culture - with obvious exceptions - that views the welfare system as a lifestyle with no intention of ever getting off it.
What really unnerves me is seeing the obese mom buying her undoubtedly diabetic kid a Slim Jim, Mountain Dew, and a giant bag of Skittles on an Access card. No one on welfare should be obese. That is unacceptable.

Cut them off at the source, control the funding, and you solve several problems: Recipients don't have cash for drugs, you restrict them to a healthy diet, and you make it less convenient to accept assistance. Europe puts their welfare cases on the side of the highway with a trash bag. We are far too sympathetic.

What happens when a welfare recipient is independently arrested for drug possession?

[invest7manager]

Sounds great, but I do mean this sincerely: and then what?

If this program is an overwhelming success, for lack of a better word, and we eradicate from the welfare rolls huge swaths of drug users, should we brace for a sustained spike in crime to support the habit? Of course public money shouldn't be used to support a drug habit, but who really thinks cutting the purse strings is going to end the addiction?

[insightmike]

Sounds great, but I do mean this sincerely: and then what?

If this program is an overwhelming success, for lack of a better word, and we eradicate from the welfare rolls huge swaths of drug users, should we brace for a sustained spike in crime to support the habit? Of course public money shouldn't be used to support a drug habit, but who really thinks cutting the purse strings is going to end the addiction?

Of course not. I think the primary goal of this bill is financial. I think the sympathetic caveats are afterthoughts. I don't think we've even begun to feel how bad the global economic situation is going to hurt us. We will to have to start making some tough decisions, and looking at welfare as an objective investment rather than a blank check is a start.

Being faced with an economy that seems less and less manageable everyday, when it comes to drug addicts, maybe we should yank their kids away and say "who cares?" Let natural selection deal with them. That obviously isn't going to happen, but they made their own decisions. I'd rather see that welfare money go to struggling single parents who want to contribute to the system.

Besides, how beneficial has court ordered rehabilitation ever proven? It's a place for addicts to dry out and collect enough brain cells to find their way back to their dealer.

[wJswn5l3]

States seek to link public assistance, drug testing - USATODAY.com

Can't pass a drug test? No more benefits for you.

AND THEN WHAT ?

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU CUT THEM OFF?

Conservatives never see past thier noses.

[investmentonlinev2006x]

Of course not. I think the primary goal of this bill is financial. I think the sympathetic caveats are afterthoughts. I don't think we've even begun to feel how bad the global economic situation is going to hurt us. We will to have to start making some tough decisions, and looking at welfare as an objective investment rather than a blank check is a start.

Being faced with an economy that seems less and less manageable everyday, when it comes to drug addicts, maybe we should yank their kids away and say "who cares?" Let natural selection deal with them. That obviously isn't going to happen, but they made their own decisions. I'd rather see that welfare money go to struggling single parents who want to contribute to the system.

Besides, how beneficial has court ordered rehabilitation ever proven? It's a place for addicts to dry out and collect enough brain cells to find their way back to their dealer.

and when you cut off these drug addicts..

what do you think will ACTUALLY happen.

[Turbo-ip]

and when you cut off these drug addicts..

what do you think will ACTUALLY happen.

Natural selection. They die.

[lXwVlTgO]

Natural selection. They die.

After causing thousands in damage via robbery, buglary, and the 65k a year it costs to keep them locked up.

Or you give them welfare.

See.....

[masterso]

I'm a federal employee and did not have to take a drug test before I began working, I had a background check survey, interview, finger prints, interview of character witnesses, but I didn't pee in a cup. A lot of my friends are teachers in Philly, either for charter schools or the PSD, and they didn't take drug test. (As one said, they'd lose a lot of teachers if they did. )

This is a search, and that's the problem with it. This "solution" doesn't fix the "problem." How's it funded, what are the reprucussions, what will be the optimal gain? And more importantly, what "problem" is this solving? As far as I can tell from my experience living in a mixed income neighborhood- any "problem" elements associated with a housing unit- typically aren't the responsible head of house that this test would target. Typically it's some son/nephew/cousin/friend that's practicing that time honored tradition of not "pooping where you eat" and therefor travel to another location (my neighborhood) to "poop."

And then, even though we're talking about State dollars here, if there are any Federal dollars getting mixed in with those State dollars- well, that's just a whole new big ball of wax that will be super complicated to digest.

This seems like a class warfare thing to me. That may be a little dramatic, but seriously, from another thread- should banks do this before handing out mortgages, should the SEC make companies submit to drug test before allowing them to complete mergers or at the submission of financial statements?

Saying you want to fundamentally change the way welfare works is one thing. I commend you, and hope that you can find an alternative method to the current process. This is not that correct step in my opinion however. This is the strong, picking on the weak- the exact opposite of what government is supposed to do imo.

Do the majority of "testing advocates" understand the social contract that goes along with government? In so much as those who aren't well off are tendered assistance so that they can remain civil and not cause harm to the other contributing members of the populace. It's a slippery slope to take away things from folks that don't have much and expect them to be sunshine and better off for it.

As far as obesity goes, people in general that do not have a legitimate medical malady should not be obese, the poor nor the rich.

Cheers,
blah, this article makes me sad

[nuncEtedben]

I don't know why politicians would be tackling this drug test issue without first taking a look at the whole ACCESS (food stamps) abuse.
Easter is coming. Time to buy some Easter Bunny Pez candy on your ACCESS card!

The battle should start there, I think.

[meridiasas]

After causing thousands in damage via robbery, buglary, and the 65k a year it costs to keep them locked up.

Or you give them welfare.

See.....

As much as I dislike seeing tax dollars coddling drug addicts who made their own self destructive decisions, obviously I'm not serious about letting them all drop dead. It's too expensive.

Still, if we're going to use tax money to rehabilitate drug addicts, do something that works. The government can't be every waste-of-life's parent. We certainly shouldn't be handing out cash to people who are potentially using it for drugs, any more than we should be handing out Access cards that people can use for candy and Mountain Dew.

Is one of the honest arguments against this bill to keep giving them cash so they don't turn to crime to support a drug habit?