D.T.W.A.

[PLAYER57832]

We should encourage people to be sober, especially when it comes to getting public assistance.

True, but random testing is the LEAST efficient, LEAST effective, MOST intrusive and MOST expensive way to do that.

[thegreekdog]

We should encourage people to be sober, especially when it comes to getting public assistance.

No offense, because I usually agree with you, but this is not what you're saying. You're not talking about encouragement. You're talking about enforcement. We should force people to be sober before getting public assistance. While I understand your argument, it does not mesh with your insistence on lack of government intervention or lack of government spending or lack of big government. This is more government intervention, more government spending, and more big government.

Maybe you should say "stop welfare for everyone." That would be consistent.

[Phatscotty]

We should encourage people to be sober, especially when it comes to getting public assistance.

No offense, because I usually agree with you, but this is not what you're saying. You're not talking about encouragement. You're talking about enforcement. We should force people to be sober before getting public assistance. While I understand your argument, it does not mesh with your insistence on lack of government intervention or lack of government spending or lack of big government. This is more government intervention, more government spending, and more big government.

Maybe you should say "stop welfare for everyone." That would be consistent.

You are not forced to apply for welfare. But you are forced to qualify, just like with a job or in sports, but of course you are not forced to play a sport or work somewhere.

You are right I did use the word encourage here, and that is because this law is at a state level. Many states do not drug test for public assistance. We need to encourage our elected officials to toughen up.

To me, this does not qualify as big gov't or increased spending. This is a direct tool to decrease spending. A drug test does not cost that much money, and I have argued tirelessly the cost of the test is nothing compared to the saving we will make from cutting out the "waste". It will pay for itself IMO, and we will wait and see how it works then look at the results. deal?

I will also restate, many people who can not kick drugs are going to have to look for an easy welfare check to abuse in another state....Florida = weinning (Minnesota pays a lot of welfare checks to people who live in Chicago for 6 months of the year and collect dual welfare checks. Minnesota as an easy welfare state, but I think we are on our way to changing it here in the near future )

Many people who know they will not pass a drug test, will not bother to qualify as much as if there were no test....Florida = weinning

Most importantly, there is an unknown value in making a person who is in a bad place do something for themself, by themself, even if they just try to get clean, it's a better attitude than not trying at all and embracing their demons.

[Woodruff]

We should encourage people to be sober, especially when it comes to getting public assistance.

I don't believe a single one of us disagrees with any of this. But it's largely irrelevant to the points that have been discussed regarding government debt, efficiency and taxpayer money.

[Woodruff]

To me, this does not qualify as big gov't or increased spending.

I honestly cannot see how this is a possible perspective.

This is a direct tool to decrease spending.

The ONLY way that this "decreases spending" is in the realm of "this pot of money has decreased spending, but that pot of money has vastly increased spending because of the previous pot's decreased spending". So I suppose if you ignore the vast increase in spending on this new governmental program, then it's a decrease in spending specifically on welfare. But that's plainly stupid math, particularly for someone who claims to want the government to decrease taxpayer spending (which falls into all pots of money).

A drug test does not cost that much money, and I have argued tirelessly the cost of the test is nothing compared to the saving we will make from cutting out the "waste". It will pay for itself IMO, and we will wait and see how it works then look at the results. deal?

Frankly, the math doesn't work out that way. I don't possibly see how you can draw the conclusions you have, based solely on the math involved. It's unavoidable that you're wrong.

Many people who know they will not pass a drug test, will not bother to qualify as much as if there were no test....Florida = weinning

So you believe a vastly higher crime rate is "winning"? Because that's an unavoidable consequence of what you're stating.

Most importantly, there is an unknown value in making a person who is in a bad place do something for themself, by themself, even if they just try to get clean, it's a better attitude than not trying at all and embracing their demons.

Says the guy who is always complaining about government intervention. But since it's something he wants...

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, at this point, you are not even arguing properly. There are lots of people in this thread raising very valid points and arguments - and every time you fail to come up with a counter argument, you post some inane rhetoric one-liner... like this one:

We should encourage people to be sober, especially when it comes to getting public assistance.

Also, you seem to either have memory problems, or you just conveniently forget all the times when your arguments have already been refuted - you seem to think you can post them again once the thread has a few more pages.

Let's look at this for example:

This is a direct tool to decrease spending.

People have shown you - over and over - that this would not decrease spending, but rather increase it, and you just seem to plug your ears and go "la la la la I'm not hearing you".

Ok, let's say your figure is correct - that 10% of welfare recipients are drug addicts. That is what you asserted earlier - do I need to find the post and quote it?

Anyway, from what I hear, the welfare money is about 360 dollars a month per person. A single drug test for multiple substances costs around 50 dollars. Now let's do the math:

For every 100 welfare recipients, there's 10 drug addicts. We test all 100 welfare recipients, that's 50*100 = $5000. Five thousand. 10 drug addicts are caught, which saves you 360*10 = $3600. The net total is 5000-3600 = 1400

So this drug testing will cost 1400 dollars per every 100 welfare recipients, every month. Let's say there's 10 million welfare recipients, that's 140 000 000 dollars a month MORE SPENDING.

And that's only assuming your 10% figure is correct. With a lower figure, which is likely, this program will cost even more. Also, this doesn't take in account other costs associated with a program like this, like wages for the people who monitor the testing, etc. which again means the program will cost even more.

Now please stop saying this thing will decrease spending. Because it doesn't.

[Woodruff]

Rather than punishing drug addicts...
http://www.france24.com/en/20110701-por ... perts-say#

But then Phatscotty couldn't get his jollies over punishing them, I suppose.

[radiojake]

Rather than punishing drug addicts...
http://www.france24.com/en/20110701-por ... perts-say#

But then Phatscotty couldn't get his jollies over punishing them, I suppose.

For once some sanity in treating drug problems - Like I said earlier, it's a health issue, not a law enforcement problem -

[Phatscotty]

Why don't you just come out with it then and say that drug addicts on welfare should be able to blow their whole check on drugs and we shouldn't do anything about it?

Or else, a better idea, what do you guys think we should do about drug addicts who spend all their check on welfare? Should we do anything? Can we do anything? what?

You guys are just trying to score points on me. If you tried to score points on the issue, we might have gotten somewhere by now.

[Woodruff]

Why don't you just come out with it then and say that drug addicts on welfare should be able to blow their whole check on drugs and we shouldn't do anything about it?

Because it's not true...which interestingly enough is wh you're trying to put that out as being our stance.

Or else, a better idea, what do you guys think we should do about drug addicts who spend all their check on welfare? Should we do anything? Can we do anything? what?

I believe we've been quite clear in our position on this. Perhaps you should re-read the thread, this time with an open mind.

You guys are just trying to score points on me. If you tried to score points on the issue, we might have gotten somewhere by now.

It's really frightening how blind and yet thoroughly hypocritical you can be, all in the form of two sentences.

[Phatscotty]

Rather than punishing drug addicts...
http://www.france24.com/en/20110701-por ... perts-say#

But then Phatscotty couldn't get his jollies over punishing them, I suppose.

For once some sanity in treating drug problems - Like I said earlier, it's a health issue, not a law enforcement problem -

you guys arent listening, and I'm not surprised. The common theme has been "we shouldn't enable" not "we should punish".

But hey, like you're gonna stop putting words in my mouth all of a sudden



a thousand

[Woodruff]

Rather than punishing drug addicts...
http://www.france24.com/en/20110701-por ... perts-say#

But then Phatscotty couldn't get his jollies over punishing them, I suppose.

For once some sanity in treating drug problems - Like I said earlier, it's a health issue, not a law enforcement problem -

you guys arent listening, and I'm not surprised.

Apparently, the irony is deafening.

The common theme has been "we shouldn't enable" not "we should punish".

That's been what you've tried to CLAIM, sure...that is not at all what the result of what you desire would be, however.

But hey, like you're gonna stop putting words in my mouth all of a sudden

You make enough stupid statements that we really don't need to put words into your mouth, Phatscotty.

But keep rolling your eyes and keep tap-dancing and keep dodging questions and keep believing that you're doing anything but embarrassing yourself when you do.

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, I challenge you to try to live even one month without any money, shelter or food. Then, if you're still alive, tell me that taking away the welfare money from someone who is in no condition to get a job - without giving nothing in return, even - is not a punishment.

Drug addicts are an easy target. It's easy to score political points by them - drugs and drug users are demonized enough, and they can't really defend themselves... and since it's easy to blame problems on drug addicts or drugs in general, not many people are willing to spend the effort to defend them either.

If you're really interested in helping drug addicts out of their addiction, and towards a better life, you wouldn't be calling for a silly program that does nothing except lines the pockets of corrupt politicians with a bit more money. You'd instead be calling for decriminalization of drugs, and more rehabilitation/maintenance programs - since they have the distinct benefit of actually being effective.

Phatscotty, I understand that at this point, it's hard to turn back. You have thrown your support to this drug testing scam. And you've become emotionally invested in it, you have been seen vehemently defending the program for several pages, so of course you don't want to back down now. It's really hard to turn around and say "ok guys, I was wrong on this" when you've spent several pages arguing for something. But, you know, we all have to swallow our pride at times. It builds character. You know, it's never a good idea to take yourself too seriously.

[john9blue]

Why don't you just come out with it then and say that drug addicts on welfare should be able to blow their whole check on drugs and we shouldn't do anything about it?

Because it's not true...which interestingly enough is wh you're trying to put that out as being our stance.

then how would you stop them from doing it?

[Woodruff]

Why don't you just come out with it then and say that drug addicts on welfare should be able to blow their whole check on drugs and we shouldn't do anything about it?

Because it's not true...which interestingly enough is wh you're trying to put that out as being our stance.

then how would you stop them from doing it?

Did you bother looking at the link I just posted? I didn't just randomly post it, you know. That'd be a hell of a good place to start.

[john9blue]

okay, for once in your life you were right about me not reading.

so instead of taking away their welfare, you would get them treated? seems expensive, but the results of that experiment are promising. i have my doubts whether it would work on as large of a scale as the US. it should be implemented on a statewide basis first.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, I challenge you to try to live even one month without any money, shelter or food. Then, if you're still alive, tell me that taking away the welfare money from someone who is in no condition to get a job - without giving nothing in return, even - is not a punishment.

This isn't about people who are in no condition to get a job

This is about people who spend all their food and shelter money on DRUGS

I've already been over this about 19 times. Get a clue or go home

[Phatscotty]

okay, for once in your life you were right about me not reading.

so instead of taking away their welfare, you would get them treated? seems expensive, but the results of that experiment are promising. i have my doubts whether it would work on as large of a scale as the US. it should be implemented on a statewide basis first.

it is

[Phatscotty]

Why don't you just come out with it then and say that drug addicts on welfare should be able to blow their whole check on drugs and we shouldn't do anything about it?

Because it's not true...which interestingly enough is wh you're trying to put that out as being our stance.

then how would you stop them from doing it?

oh, he conveniently left all this out...

what do you guys think we should do about drug addicts who spend all their check on welfare? Should we do anything? Can we do anything? what?

What do we do? We have a program that helps people who are unable to work, but why do we skip over people who are addicted to drugs and get free money which makes them go even deeper into drugs and causes more harm to the person and their family? Welfare doesn't help those people, it hurts them. You want to help? So do I. How do we help the people who are hurting the most?

[Phatscotty]

Something you guys should understand about me and where I am coming from. Minnesota is the largest welfare state in the country, devoting over 37% of the state budget to social welfare. It's a huge problem here, in Minnesota. I am mostly speaking out for my state.

A bill that would require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing aims to protect taxpayers and provide an incentive to stay clean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tWLqFmaNdQ

[PLAYER57832]

Phatscotty, I challenge you to try to live even one month without any money, shelter or food. Then, if you're still alive, tell me that taking away the welfare money from someone who is in no condition to get a job - without giving nothing in return, even - is not a punishment.

This isn't about people who are in no condition to get a job

This is about people who spend all their food and shelter money on DRUGS

NO, its really not. That is just what you wish to believe it is about... and you keep ignoring everyone who points this out to you.

I've already been over this about 19 times. Get a clue or go home

So says the kind of avoiding the real issues, ignoring real data in favor of his "wonderful ideas".

[Phatscotty]

Caseworkers who suspect their potential welfare client is abusing drugs will require the applicant to do a drug test.

[PLAYER57832]

Something you guys should understand about me and where I am coming from. Minnesota is the largest welfare state in the country, devoting over 37% of the state budget to social welfare. It's a huge problem here, in Minnesota. I am mostly speaking out for my state.

Then its really too bad you are not better informed on this issue.. you really ought to be, if it is as important to your state as you say.

But, its like that old saying You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. We can post links, give you data, but if you cannot be bothered to understand it, to verify it at all or to question your "hallowed ideas"... you will remain ignorant. Sadly, others may pay for your ignorance, along with you.

[Phatscotty]

Something you guys should understand about me and where I am coming from. Minnesota is the largest welfare state in the country, devoting over 37% of the state budget to social welfare. It's a huge problem here, in Minnesota. I am mostly speaking out for my state.

Then its really too bad you are not better informed on this issue.. you really ought to be, if it is as important to your state as you say.

But, its like that old saying You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. We can post links, give you data, but if you cannot be bothered to understand it, to verify it at all or to question your "hallowed ideas"... you will remain ignorant. Sadly, others may pay for your ignorance, along with you.

Really? Drug tests are the norm in many states. It's working in NY, and it's about to start in FL. What do your stats and links have to do with anything? It's working where it's tried. I want it in my state.

[PLAYER57832]

This covers a big part of it.. first why the program you mentioned was struck down and the far better alternative of interviewing (just as one suggestion... though I believe woodruff mentioned this earlier). Oh, and note the $400 price tag for full tests, not the $14 you quoted earlier.:
link:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510707,00.html

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

and the above is from FOX, so hardly a left wing liberal story.