Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

[tacomancer]

Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, proposed yesterday that people seeking unemployment benefits or welfare undergo drug tests before they can receive benefits.

Normally I disagree with most things this guy does but I applaud this move.

I like most forms of welfare and I believe they serve a necessary function for our society (even though they are going to need to be scaled back because of budgetary considerations, unfortunately), but there is no purpose in spending money where it does not produce any positive benefits for the individual getting the money or for society.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Normally I disagree with most things this guy does but I applaud this move.

I like most forms of welfare and I believe they serve a necessary function for our society (even though they are going to need to be scaled back because of budgetary considerations, unfortunately), but there is no purpose in spending money where it does not produce any positive benefits for the individual getting the money or for society.

I've know qualms with this. I did have to check to see what he proposes if they're found to test positive. And I approve of that, too.

I can disagree with Hatch a LOT. But he's (normally) fairly reasonable even when I oppose him.

Here I generally support what he's doing.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm sympathetic to the idea behind these bills, but I don't really see how it will have the intended effect. If someone is a drug user who is so broke that they're on welfare, one of two things will happen:

-They quit drugs and continue to get welfare payments, or
-They keep using drugs and no longer get welfare payments

Presumably people who are drug addicts and welfare recipients have already been in situations where they had fairly substantial incentives to quit using drugs. They failed in all those situations, so I don't know why this one would be any different. I would expect that the vast majority of drug users on welfare would fall into the latter group. Society might save a few bucks, but at the expense of putting a lot of people into desperate situations.

 

[1069]

Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

And what if they test dirty?
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.
Are you going to take their kids away?
Where would you put them all?

If there's one thing our nation won't stand for, it's seeing American children going hungry, homeless, or deprived of necessities.
And we shouldn't stand for it.
This isn't Calcutta. We don't want to have to kick dirty, diseased beggar children out of our way when we walk down the street. The idea is obscene. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.

Nevertheless, we don't have the apparatus in place to remove the children of the poor en masse, even if this were a desirable solution (which i don't believe it is). We don't have anywhere to put them or any way to take care of them.

Besides, drug testing only ever really catches pot-smokers.
Most other drugs are out of one's system within hours or days.
Pot's the only one that stays with you for weeks, even over a month in some cases.
It seems counterproductive to penalize recreational pot-smokers, while meth-heads, junkies, and coke fiends continue to receive federal or state aid.

:shrug:

 

[FilmFestGuy]

And what if they test dirty?
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.
Are you going to take their kids away?
Where would you put them all?

If there's one thing our nation won't stand for, it's seeing American children going hungry, homeless, or deprived of necessities.
And we shouldn't stand for it.
This isn't Calcutta. We don't want to have to kick dirty, diseased beggar children out of our way when we walk down the street. The idea is obscene. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.

Nevertheless, we don't have the apparatus in place to remove the children of the poor en masse, even if this were a desirable solution (which i don't believe it is). We don't have anywhere to put them or any way to take care of them.

Besides, drug testing only ever really catches pot-smokers.
Most other drugs are out of one's system within hours or days.
Pot's the only one that stays with you for weeks, even over a month in some cases.
It seems counterproductive to penalize recreational pot-smokers, while meth-heads, junkies, and coke fiends continue to receive federal or state aid.

:shrug:

You're right about the pot-smoking. Something I hadn't considered.

That said, it does factor in that they would get treatment if they test positive.

 

[1069]

You're right about the pot-smoking. Something I hadn't considered.

That said, it does factor in that they would get treatment if they test positive.

Treatment doesn't work unless you want to quit.
Mandatory treatment's a waste of money.

 

[tacomancer]

Welfare is administered on the state level and for those states who have carved out legalities for weed, my guess is that they will take that into account while administering the drug tests.

 

[Cold Highway]

I read the article several times but I couldnt find Hatch's plan to pay for said testing. Not that I disagree with the plan but you have to pay the piper you know.

 

[Jucon]

I'm in favor of this except for a few reasons:
1. Urine tests can be easy to beat.
2. Saliva tests sometimes only require you to be sober for a few days (or clean the hell out of your mouth).
3. Blood tests and hair tests can give positive results even after someone has been sober for many months, so even if someone was sober for a long time they could still test positive.
4. Even if someone stays sober long enough to pass a test, they can just go back to using again after they pass the test.

But overall I support this move, though I wouldn't know the right way to implement it.

 

[1069]

I'm in favor of this except for a few reasons:
1. Urine tests can be easy to beat.
2. Saliva tests sometimes only require you to be sober for a few days (or clean the hell out of your mouth).
3. Blood tests and hair tests can give positive results even after someone has been sober for many months, so even if someone was sober for a long time they could still test positive.
4. Even if someone stays sober long enough to pass a test, they can just go back to using again after they pass the test.

But overall I support this move, though I wouldn't know the right way to implement it.

Hair follicle tests give accurate results for approximately three months; blood tests, less.
I would think hair follicle testing would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[rathi]

I doubt the testing would be worth the cost savings. Any system that isn't trivial to bypass will likely be rather expensive.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Political Hotsheet - CBS News



Normally I disagree with most things this guy does but I applaud this move.

I like most forms of welfare and I believe they serve a necessary function for our society (even though they are going to need to be scaled back because of budgetary considerations, unfortunately), but there is no purpose in spending money where it does not produce any positive benefits for the individual getting the money or for society.

Hopefully we won't limit our definition of "welfare" to TANF but also include Medicaid, Food stamps and Section 8.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Of course, I'm against this because I think weed is no more pernicious than alcohol. Don't think it would be right to deny someone unemployment just because they toked up the month before they got laid off.

Treatment doesn't work unless you want to quit.
Mandatory treatment's a waste of money.

I can attest to that.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Of course, I'm against this because I think weed is no more pernicious than alcohol. Don't think it would be right to deny someone unemployment just because they toked up the month before they got laid off.

I'm all for legalization of all drugs with the exception of if you go to the state and say you can't pay for lifes necessities, you shouldn't be buying alcohol, weed, cigarettes, cigars etc.

 

[Caine]

You're right about the pot-smoking. Something I hadn't considered.

That said, it does factor in that they would get treatment if they test positive.

Oh no... not more treatment!

Forced treatment doesn't work. It will be another waste of taxpayer money.

 

[Caine]

Treatment doesn't work unless you want to quit.
Mandatory treatment's a waste of money.

I guess I should have kept reading.

 

[Caine]

I read the article several times but I couldnt find Hatch's plan to pay for said testing. Not that I disagree with the plan but you have to pay the piper you know.

It MAY save enough money in the long run to cover the costs. Not sure.

I'm all for legalization of all drugs with the exception of if you go to the state and say you can't pay for lifes necessities, you shouldn't be buying alcohol, weed, cigarettes, cigars etc.

I agree. Addictions can be expensive. If the person simply cut their costs down by kicking habits, they might be able to afford to support themselves without the government's help.

I don't think I, as a taxpayer, should have to artificially prop people up and keep them from falling flat because they are incapable of making the right choices, and they know that "FOR TEH CHILDREN!" ideoglogies will not allow them to go without.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I agree. Addictions can be expensive. If the person simply cut their costs down by kicking habits, they might be able to afford to support themselves without the government's help.

I don't think I, as a taxpayer, should have to artificially prop people up and keep them from falling flat because they are incapable of making the right choices, and they know that "FOR TEH CHILDREN!" ideoglogies will not allow them to go without.

Chances are that, if a person is using drugs and can't afford to feed, cloth, house, his/her children.
Those kids have practically no hope but to become exactly what their parents are.

We aren't doing anyone any favors by enabling ****ty behavior.

 

[mac]

I'm sympathetic to the idea behind these bills, but I don't really see how it will have the intended effect. If someone is a drug user who is so broke that they're on welfare, one of two things will happen:

-They quit drugs and continue to get welfare payments, or
-They keep using drugs and no longer get welfare payments

Presumably people who are drug addicts and welfare recipients have already been in situations where they had fairly substantial incentives to quit using drugs. They failed in all those situations, so I don't know why this one would be any different. I would expect that the vast majority of drug users on welfare would fall into the latter group. Society might save a few bucks, but at the expense of putting a lot of people into desperate situations.

Whether this helps them get of drugs or not doesn't change the fact that the taxpayer shouldn't be supporting them while they sit around and get stoned.

 

[mac]

And what if they test dirty?
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.
Are you going to take their kids away?
Where would you put them all?

If there's one thing our nation won't stand for, it's seeing American children going hungry, homeless, or deprived of necessities.
And we shouldn't stand for it.
This isn't Calcutta. We don't want to have to kick dirty, diseased beggar children out of our way when we walk down the street. The idea is obscene. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.

Nevertheless, we don't have the apparatus in place to remove the children of the poor en masse, even if this were a desirable solution (which i don't believe it is). We don't have anywhere to put them or any way to take care of them.

Besides, drug testing only ever really catches pot-smokers.
Most other drugs are out of one's system within hours or days.
Pot's the only one that stays with you for weeks, even over a month in some cases.
It seems counterproductive to penalize recreational pot-smokers, while meth-heads, junkies, and coke fiends continue to receive federal or state aid.

:shrug:

Is it your assumption that all poor people are addicts?

 

[zimmer]

And what if they test dirty?
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.

You want assistance between jobs, or a drug induced vacation.
If it is the latter, it is your choice. Fund it yourself.

.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Political Hotsheet - CBS News



Normally I disagree with most things this guy does but I applaud this move.

I like most forms of welfare and I believe they serve a necessary function for our society (even though they are going to need to be scaled back because of budgetary considerations, unfortunately), but there is no purpose in spending money where it does not produce any positive benefits for the individual getting the money or for society.

I agree with this proposal, and have been suggesting it myself for years. Hatch makes a good point. Continued drug use by welfare recipients can inhibit these folks from getting off welfare, which should be the goal.

 

[zimmer]

I agree with this proposal, and have been suggesting it myself for years. Hatch makes a good point. Continued drug use by welfare recipients can inhibit these folks from getting off welfare, which should be the goal.

A lot of people made the same argument as 1069 and friends when Welfare Reform, part of the Contract with America was proffered by Republicans.

Clinton swore he would never sign Welfare Reform, but did, and it was so successful that on the 10th anniversary tried to take full credit for the program.

I see the same thing happening here.

It will be initially be an uncomfortable transition for some, but will lead to more responsibility and better lives for the parents and children on the whole. Society too.

.

 

[mac]

A lot of people made the same argument as 1069 and friends when Welfare Reform, part of the Contract with America was proffered by Republicans.

Clinton swore he would never sign Welfare Reform, but did, and it was so successful that on the 10th anniversary tried to take full credit for the program.

I see the same thing happening here.

It will be initially be an uncomfortable transition for some, but will lead to more responsibility and better lives for the parents and children on the whole. Society too.

.

I wish there was a like button here.....

 

[Caine]

I wish there was a like button here.....

Its called the thanks button, and its at the bottom left side of each post, under the posters name.