Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
A popular subject with some here on EO a while back, when Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the legislation. Those welfare bums are all on drugs. Why give them welfare when all they're going to do is spent money on drugs (and flat screen TVs and shiny wheels and whatnot)? The idea was to save Florida taxpayers' money by forcing drug users to withdraw from the public-assistance system. Well, the results are in!

A whopping 2 percent of applicants tested positive, and Florida lost money when it was forced to reimburse everyone else for the cost of the drug test, plus pay for staff and administrative costs for the program. Making matters worse, the courts have now rejected the law as blatantly unconstitutional, forcing its demise.

Naturally, after seeing Rick Scott's experiment fail, other Cracker Jack Republican officials elsewhere were eager to follow Florida's example of intrusive, big-government conservatism. Take Utah, for example.

Utah has spent more than $30,000 to screen welfare applicants for drug use since a new law went into effect a year ago, but only 12 people have tested positive, state figures show.

The preliminary data from August 2012 through July 2013 indicates the state spent almost $6,000 to give 4,730 applicants a written test. After 466 showed a likelihood of drug use, they were given drug tests at a total cost of more than $25,000, according to the Utah Department of Workforce Services, which administers welfare benefits and the tests.

I can certainly understand the reason for all of these efforts. For some, there's an insatiable desire to punish and shame the poor, working from the assumption that if someone is struggling during weak economic times, it's their own fault. But the idea is nevertheless ridiculous. Especially in light of the facts. And yet, at least 29 other states this year have considered similar proposals.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I don't think you'll have any more states going forward with drug testing after they read these results. Except for possibly Florida and Texas, they're officials are pretty dense.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
A popular subject with some here on EO a while back, when Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the legislation. Those welfare bums are all on drugs. Why give them welfare when all they're going to do is spent money on drugs (and flat screen TVs and shiny wheels and whatnot)? The idea was to save Florida taxpayers' money by forcing drug users to withdraw from the public-assistance system. Well, the results are in!

A whopping 2 percent of applicants tested positive, and Florida lost money when it was forced to reimburse everyone else for the cost of the drug test, plus pay for staff and administrative costs for the program. Making matters worse, the courts have now rejected the law as blatantly unconstitutional, forcing its demise.

Naturally, after seeing Rick Scott's experiment fail, other Cracker Jack Republican officials elsewhere were eager to follow Florida's example of intrusive, big-government conservatism. Take Utah, for example.



I can certainly understand the reason for all of these efforts. For some, there's an insatiable desire to punish and shame the poor, working from the assumption that if someone is struggling during weak economic times, it's their own fault. But the idea is nevertheless ridiculous. Especially in light of the facts. And yet, at least 29 other states this year have considered similar proposals.

I would LOVE to be allowed to go into Downtown Detroit, pick up 1 or 2 hundred welfare "lifers" and test them. I bet it would be more than 2%. WAY higher if you go into the bars. Applicants and long term welfare reciepeints are a different kettle of wax. I mean, they had to pass a law here stopping welfare rangers from using their money at the local casinos.

Is any of this cost effective? Not likely. Is it about shaming? I don't believe so.

Should those receiving welfare be able to buy luxury items? Things like cigarettes, pop, smart phones, tattoo's etc etc? If they are so bad off that they have to go on welfare to feed their family, how in the world can they afford luxuries? After, it is NOT money they EARNED. That money was taken from those who rightfully earned it, and GIVEN to someone else, with absolutely NO say it how it can be used.

While I agree that in many cases it is not an individuals fault in weak economic times, in as many or more cases, it IS.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Perhaps the answer is to test only those who have been on for longer than a set amount of time.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
I don't believe that # @ all...I don't know what the exact % of the population that uses illegal drugs but I'm sure its higher than 2%..so having no job and TONS of time on your hands makes you less likely to use...something doesn't add up..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
 

roadeyes

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
It seems unclear in the article, but it looks like they might have only been testing new applicants, not current recipients? Not only that but really, unless they are doing hair testing, everybody knows its not hard to beat a urine drug test.
 

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
It clearly states "welfare applicants".

If I were on drugs and told that I was going to be screened when I apply for welfare then I would:

A) Not apply
B) Wait until they were out of my system
C) Figure out a way to cheat

How many people on drugs would go through this screening knowing that they are going to be caught? I am guessing 2% ? :confused:
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
It clearly states "welfare applicants".

If I were on drugs and told that I was going to be screened when I apply for welfare then I would:

A) Not apply
B) Wait until they were out of my system
C) Figure out a way to cheat

How many people on drugs would go through this screening knowing that they are going to be caught? I am guessing 2% ? :confused:
You would be amazed..when I had my Insulation Co. Many..many applicants failed even with notice to not waste my time if you were dirty...what do you have to loose...and a lot to gain if you slip through...


Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
The number is total BS and instead of testing people on welfare they screwed with the numbers by having a written test they felt would narrow it down. How many were eliminated from the test based on things like race or creed? What were the questions on the test that eliminated people from getting tested?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
No need to go out of the way to test them. IF they are picked up for public drunkenness, or drugged, end their welfare, on the spot.
 

cranis

Expert Expediter
Driver
I agree with the testing, but what I disagree with is, that having to pay BEFORE gettting assistance is stupid. I say test and if come back as drug use than deny benefit and bill the person that tested positive.. with credit collections etc. But do not deny kids who are nothing but innocents.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
The number is total BS and instead of testing people on welfare they screwed with the numbers by having a written test they felt would narrow it down. How many were eliminated from the test based on things like race or creed? What were the questions on the test that eliminated people from getting tested?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

The test was administered by Utah's Dept of Workforce Services - the same ones who pay welfare benefits. Maybe you could explain how it benefits them to enlarge the pool of welfare recipients?
Because everything I've read is about how states are trying to shrink that pool, which is why the drug testing was suggested.
It's really hard to give up those cherished myths, eh?
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
The solution is simple: abolish all publicly funded forms of welfare, totally & immediately. Anything else is theft. Any form of social safety net we need & want can be funded and administered by the private sector, who can set their own standards. Maybe in Sean Francisco and Berkeley, they see drug addicts as an under-privileged, under-served group and will want to set up welfare programs for only them. Let them have at it.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
The private sector? No. Just: no.
Poor people would be better off in the private sector. Agencies that assist single mothers with infants do so because they care about them. Agencies that set up shop to help left-handed lesbian Eskimos have some sort of concern for them, wherever based. Does government have that? You've heard the jokes about health case being run by the DMV or post office; why have them or other similar agencies run welfare? With whom are they better off?
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
The private sector? No. Just: no.

And I didn't even point out that "public sector" welfare invariably involves theft and lack of either meaningful means-testing fit recipients or reward ("karma" if you must) for "donors.")
 

BillChaffey

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
US Navy
In August of 2007 while at Panther Orientation. When it was announced they were going to start the drug screen at least 7 persons got up and walked out.:rolleyes:
 
Top