Looks like Kentucky is gonna start drug testing welfare bums

[DanXIII 8]

On the surface, this plan sounds great. The more I think about it, the less great it sounds, at least from a cost standpoint. It will only be effective if regular, random screens are given. Most druggies can lay off drugs long enough to pass a pee test if they know about it in advance. If they're just giving one test at the time of application, they aren't going to catch many druggies and lower welfare rolls (which is the whole point of testing). What looks on the surface to be a money-saving venture may turn out costing the state millions more than not testing at all.

 

 

 

 

[Mungwater 601]

Can't they do a hair test? And if you come with a full body wax, automatic fail..

 

Sorry newbs, don't move to KY

[RLLD 4,275]

Can't wait to hear how this is going to be "racist".....

[DanXIII 8]

Can't they do a hair test? And if you come with a full body wax, automatic fail..

 

Sorry newbs, don't move to KY

 

IIRC the hair test is more expensive.

[NorthernVike 2,095]

Even if you test one time each year this would be a success. At least you get them clean for a month each year and maybe they'd decide it's not worth it and become a benefit to society instead of a drain.

[Mungwater 601]

IIRC the hair test is more expensive.

 

true but you'll catch more, i wonder what the algebra I'd on more you catch between more you don't have to pay.

[NewbieJr 541]

I would be 100% behind every state doing this.

 

I also think unemployment recipients should be responsible for a certain amount of public service.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I would be 100% behind every state doing this.

 

I also think unemployment recipients should be responsible for a certain amount of public service.

 

How much public service did you perform all those months you spent on unemployment scamming the system out of all that money?

[patweisers44 865]

I would be 100% behind every state doing this.

 

I also think unemployment recipients should be responsible for a certain amount of public service.

I agree with this 100%. Even if you require one 8 hour day per week, it allows the remainder of the week for job hunting, etc.

 

You collect unemployment, you can help pick up the slack for all the budget cuts that are being made/been made. Cleaning offices, washing cop cars, cooking meals for firefighters, i dont care what it is...whatever. Of course this would cause a spike in workers comp claims from injuries received "Cleaning offices, washing cop cars, cooking meals for firefighters, whatever."

[NewbieJr 541]

How much public service did you perform all those months you spent on unemployment scamming the system out of all that money?

I would have gladly participated in any plan that was in place for enemployment benefit recipients. Why should the state have to pay people to to do simple labor when they already have millions on the 'payroll' sitting home and doing nothing to earn their paycheck?

[MDC 7,882]

I am totally behind drug testing for welfare recipients, but sort of curious about the cost. I'd also be on board with requiring people on unemployment to perform some public service on a weekly basis.

[NewbieJr 541]

I am totally behind drug testing for welfare recipients, but sort of curious about the cost. I'd also be on board with requiring people on unemployment to perform some public service on a weekly basis.

I would think that the cost of testing might be alleviated by all the failed tests that would result in elimination of benefits.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I would have gladly participated in any plan that was in place for enemployment benefit recipients.

 

Nothing kept you from volunteering for any of those programs while you were committing theft by fraud, except your own hypocrisy.

[MDC 7,882]

I would think that the cost of testing might be alleviated by all the failed tests that would result in elimination of benefits.

 

That's what I was curious about. In principle I'm all for it. If somehow it's more expensive to randomly test for drug use even assuming you're throwing people off the rolls, I'd rather not spend the $ just to prove a point. I also wonder what drugs this covers -- if you smoke a J you can't collect welfare? That seems kind of ridiculous.

 

It's an interesting idea, just wish I knew more about it.

[MDC 7,882]

Nothing kept you from volunteering for any of those programs while you were committing theft by fraud, except your own hypocrisy.

 

Speaking of hypocrisy, how's Sharron Angle doing in the Senate?

[DanXIII 8]

I would think that the cost of testing might be alleviated by all the failed tests that would result in elimination of benefits.

 

Actually that wasn't the case in Michigan, the only other state to ever have tried this.

 

.In the five weeks that the program was in effect, the drug tests were positive in only eight percent of the cases, a percentage that is consistent with drug use in the general population. Of 268 people tested, only 21 tested positive for drugs and all but three were for marijuana.

 

http://my.firedoglak...one-on-welfare/

 

If you can get past the horrible grammar and typos, that blogger does a decent job of analyzing the math and assessing the costs. It appears that the law will wind up costing the state even more than not testing, at least the way it is currently written.

[Mungwater 601]

I also wonder what drugs this covers -- if you smoke a J you can't collect welfare? That seems kind of ridiculous.

 

It's an interesting idea, just wish I knew more about it.

currently can you collect welfare if you break any laws? I'm honestly asking because I don't know..

 

Smoking a J is against the law, so why make the distinction between drugs?

[MDC 7,882]

currently can you collect welfare if you break any laws? I'm honestly asking because I don't know..

 

Smoking a J is against the law, so why make the distinction between drugs?

 

I have no idea if you can collect welfare if you break laws.

 

I'm sure any drug testing will include pot, I just don't really have a moral issue with it.

 

The thorny thing about welfare for me is when there are kids involved. It's hard to throw a deadbeat off the welfare rolls if he / she has innocent kids who rely on them.

[Ravens 03 0]

I am all for:

 

- Drug testing anyone getting public dollars [welfare, unemployment, section-8 housing, food stamps, WIC, etc]. Random and regular tests are the way to go.

- Requiring 1 day a week of true public service if receiving ANY of these.

- Not allowing food stamsp to be used on anything besides basic food.

- Fingerprinting of ALL receiptients.

 

 

Seems a pretty simple and common-sense thing to do, right?

[Mungwater 601]

 

The thorny thing about welfare for me is when there are kids involved. It's hard to throw a deadbeat off the welfare rolls if he / she has innocent kids who rely on them.

 

ah, good point.. And I'm sure the costs associated with putting them up somewhere is cheaper than the welfare received.

 

Double edged sword

[TimmySmith 2,783]

More trouble (and expense) than it's worth. So you catch them. Now what? America has shown time and again that it is unwilling to enforce certain laws and this appears to be one of those type of laws.

[DanXIII 8]

Now the bill's sponsor wants to send everyone who fails to rehab

 

The [bill's] sponsor, Lancaster Republican Lonnie Napier, said in an interview that he plans to amend the bill to allow those who fail the drug tests to continue receiving assistance if they undergo state-paid substance abuse treatment.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kentucky.asp

 

Add this to the fact that no testing program has a chance of being effective unless testing is done both randomly and regularly, which apparently isn't the case with this bill. There's no way this doesn't wind up costing KY much more than not testing.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Now the bill's sponsor wants to send everyone who fails to rehab

 

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kentucky.asp

 

Add this to the fact that no testing program has a chance of being effective unless testing is done both randomly and regularly, which apparently isn't the case with this bill. There's no way this doesn't wind up costing KY much more than not testing.

 

Short term costs may be higher. Long term it will be lower.

 

Get them off the public dole, get them treatment to get off drugs, and they have a better chance of becoming a productive member of society. The system today let's them be career welfare slugs.

[Mungwater 601]

Send them to rehab? How much does that cost? You can't make someone get clean if they don't want to, just look at that golden voice guy..

 

Ok, so this again is just s bill to check the box for a reelection campaign or a bumper sticker.

[MDC 7,882]

Ok, so this again is just s bill to check the box for a reelection campaign or a bumper sticker.

 

You've just described 90% of the Republican platform.

[Mungwater 601]

You've just described 90% of the Republican platform.

 

both sides do it, hope and change ring a bell?

 

I've said it a million times, schit I've got friends from college who are in the house, they all just care about reelection and the special interests, not their constituents.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Send them to rehab? How much does that cost? You can't make someone get clean if they don't want to, just look at that golden voice guy..

 

Ok, so this again is just s bill to check the box for a reelection campaign or a bumper sticker.

 

You test positive you have 2 choices:

 

1. Go to rehab

 

2.

 

You fail in rehab:

 

 

It's not the responsibility of the U.S. taxpayer to fund the drug habits of the unemployed, or anyone else for that matter.

[DanXIII 8]

It's not the responsibility of the U.S. taxpayer to fund the drug habits of the unemployed, or anyone else for that matter.

 

Is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund drug rehab for the unemployed or anyone else for that matter? That's what this law would do.

[GobbleDog 1,010]

It won't stop drug use and it won't save money, so what's the point? It just politicians pandering ignorant voters.

 

 

"Vote for me! I'll keep people who fail drug-tests from getting welfare! To hell with their broke asses and their ugly kids."

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund drug rehab for the unemployed or anyone else for that matter? That's what this law would do.

 

 

No it isn't, but I'm not a heartless human like you.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to replacing the welfare payment for a treatment payment and give them a chance to turn their life around. IMO this would help the situation in the long run. If they don't take the treatment seriously then it's time for Dan to kick them to the curb.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Drug test them.

Fingerprint them.

DNA sample them.

 

 

If you want a free ride, agree to the above. If not, go it alone.

[kilroy69 1,268]

So you are willing to take away welfare for smoking a joint? These people are low income anyway and I would be willing to guess the prevalence of drugs such as MJ is rampant. In a time when we need to be saving money they want to add a level of testing thats going to cost the state more? This is the REASON why they are in this boat in the first place. P!ss poor decisions with what to do with your tax money.

[DanXIII 8]

Drug test them.

Fingerprint them.

DNA sample them.

 

 

If you want a free ride, agree to the above. If not, go it alone.

 

These are all really good ideas.

 

Would it be okay if we raised your taxes in order to pay for them?

 

[GettnHuge 2]

So you are willing to take away welfare for smoking a joint?

 

I'd like to take away welfare if they know someone who knows someone who smoked a joint

[MDC 7,882]

So you are willing to take away welfare for smoking a joint? These people are low income anyway and I would be willing to guess the prevalence of drugs such as MJ is rampant. In a time when we need to be saving money they want to add a level of testing thats going to cost the state more? This is the REASON why they are in this boat in the first place. P!ss poor decisions with what to do with your tax money.

 

I agree and that's sorta why I asked about MJ before.

 

I almost never smoke but once every 3-4 months I'm at a party or whatever when someone cracks it out and I'll partake. I work 50+ hours per week and never call out. I just don't think a little MJ is preventing anyone from getting off the welfare rolls so it seems like needless harrassment. Then again, I think marijuana should be legalized and taxed so it's not really a crime in my mind.

[IMMensaMind 462]

These are all really good ideas.

 

Would it be okay if we raised your taxes in order to pay for them?

 

 

This would cost nothing, and - instead - would save money.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Then again, I think marijuana should be legalized and taxed so it's not really a crime in my mind.

 

And being here illegally is not a crime.

[DanXIII 8]

Yes, of course, maintaining DNA and fingerprint databases and drug testing are all free of charge

 

I've provided evidence of how it doesn't save money (at least the drug testing part). Do you have any evidence supporting your assertion that it would not only cost *nothing* and even save money?

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yes, of course, maintaining DNA and fingerprint databases and drug testing are all free of charge

 

I've provided evidence of how it doesn't save money (at least the drug testing part). Do you have any evidence supporting your assertion that it would not only cost *nothing* and even save money?

 

 

How much does a computer database cost? Hard drive storage is cheap. Having that info on file would clear up a lot of crimes in a hurry, thus lowering law enforcement costs.

[Me_2006 14]

I agree and that's sorta why I asked about MJ before.

 

I almost never smoke but once every 3-4 months I'm at a party or whatever when someone cracks it out and I'll partake. I work 50+ hours per week and never call out. I just don't think a little MJ is preventing anyone from getting off the welfare rolls so it seems like needless harrassment. Then again, I think marijuana should be legalized and taxed so it's not really a crime in my mind.

 

 

Our stance on weed is the same, but we both know that the scenario that exists for you is not the norm.

 

 

I live here. The kind of people here who are on welfare, from my experiences, are the type who blame their problems on someone else, spend money irresponsibly, and are generally lazy. I know that sounds stereotypical, but I can't name a half dozen people that I know who receive welfare (or disability, it's honestly worse. I know soooo many meth heads with 'bad backs' that I can't count them all) that actually need and use the system correctly.

 

 

The pot smoking welfare crowd that I've seen from my experience doesn't just smoke 3-4 a year while at a party. It's that many a day. They're the kind of people who put black out window tint and wal-mart sound systems in their 88 Honda Accord with no exhaust pipe. They're the people I went to high school with that were smoking in the alley outside the movie theatre and had 2 babies before junior year and then dropped out after the 35 year old babydaddy shacked up with someone else.

 

If you have money to buy weed, your kid shouldn't get free lunch. I know it isn't the kids fault that their parents suck, but when you show a kid that you can get money for nothing, then spend it on ridiculous things and drugs, and people will STILL give you free food and housing, nothing ever gets any better. So no, while weed isn't a 'crime' in my opinion, it sure as hell isn't something you should condone the usage of by people who are being GIVEN money.