ATTN Lawyer Types...Having difficulty....

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

As to your post, I can ALMOST get on board. The problem is one of substitution. Even if the welfare, food stampes, whatever only goes to essentials for life (which they clearly don't always do), then that gain can free up other money to be used for drugs, alcohol, etc. I think the legitimate goal behind drug testing is to create some form of litmus test. Not saying this is the true motivation of all, but it is a possible means test. If you can afford drugs, do you truly need public assitance? That kind of thing.

It's not likely that this cohort of people can afford drugs via much legitimate income in the first place. They get the money by hustling - stealing, whoring and lowest-echelon drug dealing. Done right, a sensible protocol (freeing-up the money, as you put it) would likely result in less petty criminal activity to fund the drug buys. Win-win, on balance, IMO.

ok, off to work.

[davjohns 1]

Fair points and good logic. So, how do we influence them to turn away from the illicit behavior and get off the public dole? We have third and fourth generation welfare recipients in the US. Something is missing in the system.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Glitch 0]

Lets start with mandatory birth control. Want your gubberment cheese? ...get the shot first. Male and female... it makes no nevermind to me. Hell.. offer em a few bucks to get spayed or neutered at the gubberments expense. Im thinking it will take a generation, but it will eventually break the generational cycle....

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Lets start with mandatory birth control.

That sounds too much like Eugenics, most of it tacitly (if not openly) ethnically discriminatory; and that makes me want to invoke Hitler.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Fair points and good logic. So, how do we influence them to turn away from the illicit behavior and get off the public dole? We have third and fourth generation welfare recipients in the US. Something is missing in the system.

I dont think the congress critters think anything is missing

It is a created voting block
It is what they want

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BIGUN 1,065]

Quote

all welfare be paid in debit cards that can only be used by the named recipient, and can only be redeemed for reasonably-defined food and clothing items,

Whilst good intent... just creates a black market of sales for cash to purchase drugs. There will always be abuses in a system of welfare, but the best prevention is in educating the next generation on what opportunities they have and the path to get there.

Most cities now have a pretty fair-good Workforce Development team. I find it interesting in the number of 20ish year olds who show up because THEY want to change the cycle. One thing popular prime time media has done is expose these kids to "seeing" what they can do; not what's always been done.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, so an indigent person tests positive for drugs. Now what would you do with them?

Take away his guns and anything that might be fashioned into a weapon. Seize him and place him in jail for a while. Once he's charged, sent to prison and released, immediate take him and put him in a mental health long-term custodial facility so that we can be sure he doesn't kill a bunch of schoolkids.

there's some funny posting/mocking - thanks, I needed the chuckle

I think it sad that he mocks the murdered kids in Newtown in order to promote his do-nothing-everything-is-hunky-dory agenda.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

all welfare be paid in debit cards that can only be used by the named recipient, and can only be redeemed for reasonably-defined food and clothing items,

Whilst good intent... just creates a black market of sales for cash to purchase drugs. There will always be abuses in a system of welfare, but the best prevention is in educating the next generation on what opportunities they have and the path to get there.

Maybe so, but if they're already drug-addicted they're going to get the money to buy drugs one way or another. I'd rather it be via purchasing re-sellable goods from legitimate merchants, which contributes to the main-stream economy, rather than by stealing things to sell, which is mostly a drain on the main-stream economy, or by whoring themselves and/or working as low-level drug dealers themselves, which just perpetuates the social blight.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm wondering what people think about the other part - that money designed for use by the child be administered by someone who isn't on drugs.

This seems to be a legitimate issue - that there should be something there to ensure that kids don't go hungry because the mother blew it on weed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,416]

> If you can afford drugs, do you truly need public assitance?

For many people that is why they need public assistance.

If you've ever met anyone with a serious drug problem you know that they're not making decisions like "gee, I could spend the money on wholesome food or I could buy more mind-damaging drugs." To someone badly addicted, they don't have a choice.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I'm wondering what people think about the other part - that money designed for use by the child be administered by someone who isn't on drugs.

This seems to be a legitimate issue - that there should be something there to ensure that kids don't go hungry because the mother blew it on weed.

There are already provisions in the code in my state (and I believe most other states) for a surrogate payee in cases where a parent is not capable. I see that as entirely separate from the drug testing.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[davjohns 1]

Quote

> If you can afford drugs, do you truly need public assitance?

For many people that is why they need public assistance.

If you've ever met anyone with a serious drug problem you know that they're not making decisions like "gee, I could spend the money on wholesome food or I could buy more mind-damaging drugs." To someone badly addicted, they don't have a choice.

So...we need to institutionalize them? That's the only option I see other than continuing to enable their problem at taxpayer expense.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[BIGUN 1,065]

>>>>via purchasing re-sellable goods from legitimate merchants, which contributes to the main-stream economy

Good point.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

> If you can afford drugs, do you truly need public assitance?

For many people that is why they need public assistance.

If you've ever met anyone with a serious drug problem you know that they're not making decisions like "gee, I could spend the money on wholesome food or I could buy more mind-damaging drugs." To someone badly addicted, they don't have a choice.

So...we need to institutionalize them? That's the only option I see other than continuing to enable their problem at taxpayer expense.

see, I'd take his "understand their situation" paragraph and sympathize. But my conclusion would be the opposite of the lead sentence and read it "For many people that is why they can't be given public assistance"

when somebody "needs" something to their very personal and serious detriment, the solution is to help kick the addiction, not finance it directly or indirectly

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

The question of TANF and the ability of people with drug and alcohol problems to receive assistance has somehow gotten intertwined with this lawsuit. It seems many are not aware of the already existing provisions in the TANF programs dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. Many states already have policies on TANF recipients with felong drug convictions or substance abuse issues. Under these policies recipients typically either receive a reduced benefit or are required to participate in drug/alcohol rehab as a condition for receiving benefits. In some states they may be prohibited from receiving any benefits or may have to have a substitute payee. In addition, almost all TANF recipients have to participate in job readiness and employment activities. If somebody has substance abuse issues that prevent them from doing that then they are not getting their benefits. Here is a (somewhat dated) survey about drug and alcohol policies for TANF recipients from 2001-2002: http://www.lac.org/doc_library/lac/publications/state_of_state.pdf

This particular lawsuit is whether the government can require participants in aid programs to waive their Fourth Amendment rights without any reasonable suspcion. The court correctly ruled that they could not. In this particular case the recipient was an honorably discharged veteran who was taking full time care of his child and his disabled mother. There was absolutely no probably cause to believe he had any sort of drug or alcohol problem.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,416]

>So...we need to institutionalize them?

?? Uh, OK. That's going to be a lot more expensive than food stamps, but if you're willing to pay for it, I am sure a lot of them would take you up on it. Personally I don't think this is the best time to start something like that.

[wmw999 2,134]

Anyone with a felony drug conviction from after August 1996 is ineligible for TANF (welfare) or SNAP (food stamps). The children of these people are still eligible, but the amount is pretty seriously reduced.

That includes a whole lot of people who aren't doing drugs, and haven't in a long time.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Anyone with a felony drug conviction from after August 1996 is ineligible for TANF (welfare) or SNAP (food stamps). The children of these people are still eligible, but the amount is pretty seriously reduced.

That includes a whole lot of people who aren't doing drugs, and haven't in a long time.

Wendy P.

Exactly, but I don't expect facts to stop people from ranting about the unfair advantages the poor are getting from the system and how we have to take rights away from them.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Anyone with a felony drug conviction from after August 1996 is ineligible for TANF (welfare) or SNAP (food stamps). The children of these people are still eligible, but the amount is pretty seriously reduced.

That includes a whole lot of people who aren't doing drugs, and haven't in a long time.

Wendy P.

Draconian, over-the-top measure based on 19th Century Dickensian ethics. Shame on us as a 21st Century society.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

>So...we need to institutionalize them?

?? Uh, OK. That's going to be a lot more expensive than food stamps, but if you're willing to pay for it, I am sure a lot of them would take you up on it. Personally I don't think this is the best time to start something like that.

I meant with a goal of helping them get clean. But Southern Man presents a better idea of making treatment / rehab / improvement a requirement.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 622]

So you do support an unconstitutional and warrantless search of one's person, so long as it's for the right reasons.

I believe that is precisely why we have and need constitutional rights.

[wmw999 2,134]

They have to be caught doing drugs first. I'd say that having drug tests could possibly be constitutional when there is a previous felony (or even misdemeanor) conviction. But without a previous conviction, it's tough to sell to people who aren't just out to punish and "get tough."

And in order to make that stand, one would have to allow previously-convicted felons to receive benefits in the first place. Which would be more expensive? Allowing a previously disallowed class of people to receive benefits, or conduct (and keep track of) periodic drug tests on selected welfare recipients?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

So you do support an unconstitutional and warrantless search of one's person, so long as it's for the right reasons.

I believe that is precisely why we have and need constitutional rights.

No. I agree with the courts decision. However, in my mind at least, it highlights the issue of abuse in these programs. Personally, I think more should be done for those with legitimate needs, but first real efforts need to be made, that do not violate peoples rights, to improve the efficency of these programs.

Through my work history I've seen a relatively great deal of abuse in regards to government assistance. In my mind those abuses harm everyone, including the recepients who are abusing the programs.

Either way, you won't find me arguing against constitutional protections...unless of course it's to just annoy someone...which is not the case here.

[normiss 622]

I agree with the intent of going after the abuse.
Stomping on our rights is not the right approach.

I just get sick to my stomach seeing how often people and government are will to do just that though.

[billvon 2,416]

> However, in my mind at least, it highlights the issue of abuse in these programs.
>Personally, I think more should be done for those with legitimate needs, but first real
>efforts need to be made, that do not violate peoples rights, to improve the efficency of
>these programs.

Well, that's a good reason to NOT do drug tests. They are in general a waste of time and money. In Florida, for example, a recent round of drug testing cost the state over $100,000 - and resulted in only 2.6% positive results, of which the vast majority were marijuana and not hard drugs. The savings garnered by denying benefits for the people who test positive for pot? About $50,000.

So that was a most excellent waste of $50,000.