D.T.W.A.

[natty dread]

What if I do drugs on welfare but don't use any welfare money to buy those drugs? Say, I grow my own or get my drugs for free? Would it then be ok to do drugs while on welfare?

[Woodruff]

Do you really think he was serious...?

Also, find your own pics. Saxi used that one like a year ago.

But it is such a great picture - how can I not re-use it?

Also, sometimes it's hard to pick up sarcasm - So I guess I thought he was serious.

Its not nearly as much about republicans vs. democrats as it is about makers vs. takers.

Yet in the case of this situation, it is those who are in favor of the drug testing who are the "takers" as they take your tax money and spend it in a fiscally untenable way.

Couldn't be more fickle. The people who abuse welfare getting kicked off it will far outweigh a 5$ test.

Roll your eyes all you want, but I am stunned that you believe there are 14 millions dollars worth of welfare recipients who are drug users within the state of Florida. It seems like a very silly thing to believe.

[Phatscotty]

you must have missed when we looked it up on Florida's site.

You can pack 5 football stadiums full of drug using welfare addicts, as there are millions on recipients in FL alone. Just a small % of that.....5 football fields.

[PLAYER57832]

you must have missed when we looked it up on Florida's site.

You can pack 5 football stadiums full of drug using welfare addicts, as there are millions on recipients in FL alone. Just a small % of that.....5 football fields.

Nope. No miss. At most, there might be 6% of welfare recipients on drugs. There are not 233 million on welfare in Florida., so not 14,000,000 on welfare who use drugs.

[Phatscotty]

you must have missed when we looked it up on Florida's site.

You can pack 5 football stadiums full of drug using welfare addicts, as there are millions on recipients in FL alone. Just a small % of that.....5 football fields.
Nope. No miss. At most, there might be 6% of welfare recipients on drugs. There are not 233 million on welfare in Florida., so not 14,000,000 on welfare who use drugs.

miss, miss, miss. omg miss. not even close. You might have a point in there somewhere, but your numbers are all messed up.

nobody said anything about 14 milliom welfare druggies.

woody said 14 mil dollars

[PLAYER57832]

you must have missed when we looked it up on Florida's site.

You can pack 5 football stadiums full of drug using welfare addicts, as there are millions on recipients in FL alone. Just a small % of that.....5 football fields.
Nope. No miss. At most, there might be 6% of welfare recipients on drugs. There are not 233 million on welfare in Florida., so not 14,000,000 on welfare who use drugs.

miss, miss, miss. omg miss. not even close. You might have a point in there somewhere, but your numbers are all messed up.

nobody said anything about 14 milliom welfare druggies.

woody said 14 mil dollars

OK, but given that in 2008, there were only 1.6 million families on AFDC, and at most, there are 6% of the welfare population on any drugs, then it seems very unlikely that you will save 14 million in Florida.

Could not get the total for FLorida alone, but for the US

The average monthly welfare benefit in 2006, which reflects the most current data collected by the government, was $372.

That is $372 a MONTH.

When you consider that people forced off welfare are likely going to wind up committing crimes and that the cost of jail, foster care for their kids (they have kids or would not be getting welfare) is MUCH higher than $372 it just does not make sense!

Even if they don't wind up in jail, how long will a parent who needed welfare keep his/her kids without it? Any idea of how overrun the Florida foster care system is?

And don't go on with the idea that some of the kids will be better off in foster care. That is only true if the kids are lucky enough to wind up in a good foster care situation. FACT is that even a definitely less than perfect parent who loves his/her kids is still usually a better place than foster care. Even if the parents are on drugs, they need help. They need the exact kinds of help Florida has cut in recent years.

[Woodruff]

you must have missed when we looked it up on Florida's site.
You can pack 5 football stadiums full of drug using welfare addicts, as there are millions on recipients in FL alone. Just a small % of that.....5 football fields.

I didn't miss anything...your willingness to believe in the vast numbers of drug-using welfare addicts is stunning to me.

[Woodruff]

you must have missed when we looked it up on Florida's site.

You can pack 5 football stadiums full of drug using welfare addicts, as there are millions on recipients in FL alone. Just a small % of that.....5 football fields.

Nope. No miss. At most, there might be 6% of welfare recipients on drugs. There are not 233 million on welfare in Florida., so not 14,000,000 on welfare who use drugs.

The $14,000,000 question isn't number of users, it's number of welfare dollars by addicts.

When you consider that people forced off welfare are likely going to wind up committing crimes and that the cost of jail, foster care for their kids (they have kids or would not be getting welfare) is MUCH higher than $372 it just does not make sense!

That's irrelevant, because Phatscotty's conscience will be clear that there will be no drug abusers using his tax money. And that's all that matters, after all. Consequences are irrelevant.

[Night Strike]

When you consider that people forced off welfare are likely going to wind up committing crimes and that the cost of jail, foster care for their kids (they have kids or would not be getting welfare) is MUCH higher than $372 it just does not make sense!

So the fact that crimes are already being committed means nothing?

[Iliad]

The deal is that people who are addicted to drugs and have had their lives destroyed by drugs are being enabled to continue the reckless behavior, in this instance.

And people who are addicted to watching TV and having their lives destroyed by sloth are being enabled to continue their reckless behaviour, and people who are addicted to going down to the local massage parlour and give all their money to the rub-and-tug girls are being enabled to continue their reckless behaviour, and so on, and so on, and so on....

This is the point you've completely avoided from the opening bell... why are you obsessing about cutting people off for doing drugs and not for doing a thousand and one other idiotic self-destructive behaviours?

Because doing drugs is illegal. When you give a blank check to people, the least you can do is make sure they aren't spending it on illegal activities. Just because those other things are stupid for people on welfare to be doing doesn't mean they are illegal.

It's pretty sad that the current line of reasoning against this policy is that A) We can't do it because we aren't doing it to other people and B) We can't do it because people are doing other unhealthy things. What ever happened to stopping ILLEGAL activities?

I love Nightstrike's opinions.

Drugs are wrong because the government said so! I do not like government, and want it to rein its power and spending because Fox said so.But I believe government should spend more money and have more power to randomly test people. Why? Because government said that drugs are wrong!

Yeah it's pretty sad when the leading arguments against a proposed measure is that is unfairly singles out the working class and further compounds their problems. Sad because this has to be pointed out for nearly all the right wing measure.

Woodruff: This isn't about helping drug addicts, or even about saving government money. This is for Scotty and Strike to conjure up a scapegoat for all their problems, all those millions of drug addicts on welfare, and to make themselves feel better

Strike and Scotty: If you do honestly believe taking away the last source of income for both their essential needs of shelter, food and water as well as their addiction is the best way to help drug addicts, I hope you get mugged by one who gets forced into a life of crime.

[PLAYER57832]

When you consider that people forced off welfare are likely going to wind up committing crimes and that the cost of jail, foster care for their kids (they have kids or would not be getting welfare) is MUCH higher than $372 it just does not make sense!

So the fact that crimes are already being committed means nothing?

Did I say that?
But, in truth, making marihuana illegal is a very poor way to combate it. The harm it causes is nowhere near the harm and expense caused by the substance itself.

Per other drugs... it really depends on the substance, but cutting welfare benefits just does not help anyone.. not the druggies, not their kids, not society. The only real benefit to this is that some people with vested interests in drug testing companies will rake in profits.

[GreecePwns]

The vast majority of non-white collar crimes are done as a result of poverty or insanity.

[Phatscotty]

The deal is that people who are addicted to drugs and have had their lives destroyed by drugs are being enabled to continue the reckless behavior, in this instance.

And people who are addicted to watching TV and having their lives destroyed by sloth are being enabled to continue their reckless behaviour, and people who are addicted to going down to the local massage parlour and give all their money to the rub-and-tug girls are being enabled to continue their reckless behaviour, and so on, and so on, and so on....

This is the point you've completely avoided from the opening bell... why are you obsessing about cutting people off for doing drugs and not for doing a thousand and one other idiotic self-destructive behaviours?

Because doing drugs is illegal. When you give a blank check to people, the least you can do is make sure they aren't spending it on illegal activities. Just because those other things are stupid for people on welfare to be doing doesn't mean they are illegal.

It's pretty sad that the current line of reasoning against this policy is that A) We can't do it because we aren't doing it to other people and B) We can't do it because people are doing other unhealthy things. What ever happened to stopping ILLEGAL activities?

I love Nightstrike's opinions.

Drugs are wrong because the government said so! I do not like government, and want it to rein its power and spending because Fox said so.But I believe government should spend more money and have more power to randomly test people. Why? Because government said that drugs are wrong!

Yeah it's pretty sad when the leading arguments against a proposed measure is that is unfairly singles out the working class and further compounds their problems. Sad because this has to be pointed out for nearly all the right wing measure.

Woodruff: This isn't about helping drug addicts, or even about saving government money. This is for Scotty and Strike to conjure up a scapegoat for all their problems, all those millions of drug addicts on welfare, and to make themselves feel better

Strike and Scotty: If you do honestly believe taking away the last source of income for both their essential needs of shelter, food and water as well as their addiction is the best way to help drug addicts, I hope you get mugged by one who gets forced into a life of crime.

Excuse me, but if the "lat source of income for food shelther and water" is not being used for food shelter and water if it's being spent on drugs. Anyone who is addicted is unable to control how they spend their money.

The money, in an addicts case, is not being spent on essentials. It's going into drug dealers pockets in the black market.

[PLAYER57832]

Excuse me, but if the "lat source of income for food shelther and water" is not being used for food shelter and water if it's being spent on drugs. Anyone who is addicted is unable to control how they spend their money.

The money, in an addicts case, is not being spent on essentials. It's going into drug dealers pockets in the black market.

#1 using drugs and being addicted are two different things. While heroine might have a close to 100% addiction rate, most drugs do not.

#2 using does not necessarily mean "buying", though I certainly say they are being irresposnible.

#3. A point you miss... most of us are not advocating simply letting drug users go. (though I am in favor of legalizing marihuana specifically). We are saying that this testing program is neither effective nor cost effective. For one thing, you have to realize that almost all welfare payments are targeted to kids, not adults. If the kids are being cared for.. I can overlook a lot, because they are preventing future societal problems (truly... I am talking evidence, not gut ideas). If they are not.. then that needs to be dealt with in and of itself. Drug testing won't do anything and will "catch" the ones who might toke an occasional marihuana bit or use an occasional other drug. I don't like that they do that, but its not harmful to us as society. Letting a bunch of people go without food... does.

#4. Each of the scenarios you lay out are people already causing other problems. Those problems mean they should be and likely will be caught, because of those behaviors (neglect of their kids, theft, etc.). Drug testing is no more likely to catch them.. and as I noted above, will catch those who are not perhaps making the best of choices , but who are not causing society any more problem than anyone else on welfare.

[Phatscotty]

Excuse me, but if the "lat source of income for food shelther and water" is not being used for food shelter and water if it's being spent on drugs. Anyone who is addicted is unable to control how they spend their money.

The money, in an addicts case, is not being spent on essentials. It's going into drug dealers pockets in the black market.

#1 using drugs and being addicted are two different things.

Someone who is not addicted to drugs is able to clean it up to pass a simple test in order to receive welfare benefits. This means we are only talking about addicts, or at least I am. And addict is the person we do not wish to see enabled by giving them public assistance.

If an addict can not clean it up long enough to qualify for Welfare, that should be a general indicator that it's time for the addict to check into rehab. Clean it up, then re-apply.

[GreecePwns]

If marijuana were legal, would you hold the same stance?

[Phatscotty]

If marijuana were legal, would you hold the same stance?

Yes, mostly because it makes you lazy.

I do not think all people on welfare are lazy, but I would bet the lazy ones are the pot smokers. Marijuana is hardly addictive and people in my life regularly quit smoking for 30 days before any interview. That is just normal in the workplace.

A person on public assistance really has no business being on depressants, without subscription, as noted on page 1. The lazy stigma is bad enough as it ism we don't need to have the standard that lazy ass pot heads can just apply for welfare cuz "work is bullshit". WE have to have a firewall for those kinds of lazies.

[PLAYER57832]

Excuse me, but if the "lat source of income for food shelther and water" is not being used for food shelter and water if it's being spent on drugs. Anyone who is addicted is unable to control how they spend their money.

The money, in an addicts case, is not being spent on essentials. It's going into drug dealers pockets in the black market.

#1 using drugs and being addicted are two different things.

Someone who is not addicted to drugs is able to clean it up to pass a simple test in order to receive welfare benefits. This means we are only talking about addicts, or at least I am. And addict is the person we do not wish to see enabled by giving them public assistance.

No, you are talking about stupid or irresponsible people.

If an addict can not clean it up long enough to qualify for Welfare, that should be a general indicator that it's time for the addict to check into rehab. Clean it up, then re-apply.

Again, the question is whether this testing regime is the best way to accomplish that. You keep going on about drugs being illegal... yada yada, but keep sidestepping the real issue.. this testing won't solve any real problem and will cost taxpayers huge amounts of money. There are other, far more effective ways to target addicts.

[Phatscotty]

a drug test is pennies compared to 300$ every months for years

[PLAYER57832]

a drug test is pennies compared to 300$ every months for years

We are not talking about one test, but many, repeated constantly. And, the fact remains that most people on welfare are not on drugs. As you noted, even some of those who are using will avoid a positive test through various ways. Those it will catch, by your description, will be caught for other things in other ways (and thus also be caught for drugs incidentally.. whether it is through dealings with children and youth, the police or other).

So, you are looking at spending MUCH more than $300 a month to catch a fraction of the 6% that represents the highest validated estimate of drug users on welfare.

[Symmetry]

a drug test is pennies compared to 300$ every months for years

Nah- you're sidestepping. Testing everyone who applied for benefits would cost a huge amount. If it weeds out a few addicts, would you then ask for it to be stopped? No- this looks like a permanent thing. That the government should constantly test, for example, the disabled for illegal drugs to see if they qualify for welfare.

That's a huge expenditure you're proposing in perpetuity.

[Phatscotty]

a drug test is pennies compared to 300$ every months for years

Nah- you're sidestepping. Testing everyone who applied for benefits would cost a huge amount. If it weeds out a few addicts, would you then ask for it to be stopped? No- this looks like a permanent thing. That the government should constantly test, for example, the disabled for illegal drugs to see if they qualify for welfare.

That's a huge expenditure you're proposing in perpetuity.

There are more than a few in Florida. There are 5 football stadiums full. We went over this and I included all my links around page 3ish.

The main saver is that people who have not kicked the drugs will not waste a drug test kit cuz they know that they will not pass it. We don't have to spend 14$ on a test, and we don't have to spend 3,600$ of welfare on the addict

If we want to help anyone, it should be the people who have the worst problems. We don't wantto enable them and their disease.

[Symmetry]

a drug test is pennies compared to 300$ every months for years

Nah- you're sidestepping. Testing everyone who applied for benefits would cost a huge amount. If it weeds out a few addicts, would you then ask for it to be stopped? No- this looks like a permanent thing. That the government should constantly test, for example, the disabled for illegal drugs to see if they qualify for welfare.

That's a huge expenditure you're proposing in perpetuity.

There are more than a few in Florida. There are 5 football stadiums full. We went over this and I included all my links around page 3ish.

The main saver is that people who have not kicked the drugs will not waste a drug test kit cuz they know that they will not pass it.

If we want to help anyone, it should be the people who have the worst problems. We don't wantto enable them and their disease.

I didn't ask for any statistics about Florida. You're sidestepping again.

When would this testing stop? Would it be for everyone who applied for benefits, forever?

[Phatscotty]

I suppose someone could change the law.

Florida has a huge problem with drugs, and this is a common sense fix as far as welfare abuse is concerned.

Not only is the system abused, but this abuse also makes addicts problems and lives and relations with other people worse.

[natty dread]

I suppose someone could change the law.

Florida has a huge problem with drugs, and this is a common sense fix as far as welfare abuse is concerned.

Not only is the system abused, but this abuse also makes addicts problems and lives and relations with other people worse.

Stop pretending this has anything to do with "helping the poor drug addicts". This is exactly the opposite, this is making the life of people who already have problems have even more problems.

This kind of thing doesn't help anyone, and it will hurt many people. For what... some perceived savings? In the long run, this will cost you more.

But hey, you keep supporting corrupt politicians who are just interested in lining their own pockets.